f  ?vv:-.-. 


.V. 


■'  <«|-''^A, v.. :..■■,•   ., 

if'i,'-  ■■■■ .     ■'     ■  y/?-'';---v  ,.-•.■: 


S- 


t-^'r*-^^ 

.-  ■■.    -* 

/.<..?*'^' ' 

'■'>.  - 

VV- 

feis 

1%;':^;. ,-. 

^"-.v?^- 

[^'■/-■/Ayji'; 

/,.;•^Mi*£t 

.    .V 

THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


THE 


PUBLICATIONS 


OP   THE 


^efben    ^ocitt^ 


Trepl  TravTO'!  rf)v  iXevOeplav 


VOLUME  XXXV 
FOR    THE    YEAR    1918 


^eCben    ^ocUt^ 


Founded  1887 

TO  ENCOURAGE  THE  STUDY  AND  ADVANCE  THE  KNOWLEDGE 
OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  ENGLISH  LAW. 


patron: 

HIS  MAJESTY  THE  KING. 

ipresiOent: 

THE  RIGHT  HON.  LORD  PARKER  OF  WADDINGTON. 
WiccsprcstOcnts : 

THE  RIGHT  HON.  LORD  SUMNER. 
MR.  G.  BOYDELL  HOUGHTON. 


Mr.  W.  Paley  Baildos. 

MU.  W.  C.  BOLLAND. 

Mr.  H.  L.  Farrer. 
Dr.  Edwin  Fheshfield. 
Mr.  H.  D.  Hazeltine. 
Mr.  Gilbert  Hurst. 

Mk.  W.  S.    HOIDSWORTH. 

The    Right   Hon.   Sir   Matthew- 
Ingle  JOTCE. 


Council: 

Professor  Cocrtnet  S.  Kennt. 

His  Honour  Judge  Lock. 

Mr.  Walter  Charles  Renshaw, 

K.C. 
The    Right    Hon.   Lord   Justice 

Warrington. 
The  Right  Hon.  Lord  Wrenbcrt. 
Mr.  T.  Cvfrian  Williams. 
Mr.  James  G.  Wood. 


Xltcrarg  directors: 

The  Right  Hon.  Sir  Frederick  I'oli.ock,  Bart.  (13  Olil  Square,  Lincoln's  Inn). 
Sir  Paul  Vinogradoff  (19  Holland  Road,  W.). 

iJonorarB  auOitota: 

Mr.  R.  F.  Norton,  K.C.  Mr.  Hubert  Hall. 

Secretary : 

Mb.  n.  Stuart  Moore  (6  King's  Bemh  Walk,  Temple,  London). 

■fconorarg  ^Ircaeurcr: 

Mr.  J.  E.  W.  Rider  (8  New  Square,  Liiicoln's  Inn,  London). 

Honorary  Secretary  an£t  treasurer  tor  tbc  "ClnUcO  States: 

Mr.  Kicuard  W.  Half  (10  Central  Street,  Boston,  Mass.). 


CollegB 
Lilirary 


'^tUtt  Cas^B  2lpfnr0  tl|?  iKmg'fl  ([.auntil 
1243-1482 


PRINTED  AT 

THE  HARVAHD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

CAMBRIDGE,  MASS.,  U.S.A. 


^efben    ^oci^t^ 


SELECT  CASES 
BEFORE  THE  KING'S  COUNCIL 

1243-1482 


EDITED  FOR  THE  SELDEN  SOCIETY  BY 

I.  S.  LEADAM  AND  J.  F.  BALDWIN 


CAMBRIDGE 

THE    HARVARD    UNIVERSITY    PRESS 

1918 

All   rights   reserved 


College 
Library 


PREFACE 

The  death  of  Mr.  Leadam  in  the  Fall  of  1913  in  the  full  vigour  of  his 
work  was  a  serious  loss  to  the  Selden  Society.  With  eminent  success 
as  an  author  and  editor,  he  had  contributed  three  of  the  former  pub- 
lications of  the  Society,  and  was  already  engaged  upon  the  present 
volume,  when  the  pen  dropped  from  his  hand.  As  his  literary 
executor  it  is  incumbent  upon  me  to  explain  the  part  of  the  labour 
for  which  he  is  to  be  credited.  Eight  of  the  selected  cases  and 
excerpts,  including  Boistard  v.  Cumbwell,  Taylor  v.  Rochester,  Bishop 
of  Valence  v.  Worcester,  Rex  v.  Gerdeston,  Lombards  v.  Mercers, 
Molyns  v.  Fiennes,  Lowestoft  v.  Yarmouth,  and  Taylors  v.  Brembre 
were  left  in  completed  form  with  texts,  translations,  footnotes,  and 
introductions.  These  have  been  retained  with  the  least  possible 
alteration.  In  Ughtred  v.  Musgrave  I  have  extended  the  text,  and 
further  elaborated  the  notes.  A  mass  of  miscellaneous  papers  also 
were  placed  in  my  hands.  But  the  selection  and  annotation  of  all 
the  other  cases  are  substantially  my  own.  Because  the  work  covers 
much  of  the  same  ground,  for  the  history  of  the  subject  I  must 
frequently  refer  the  reader  to  my  former  treatise  of  The  King's 
Council  (1913).  As  with  almost  every  other  enterprise  in  our  affili- 
ated countries,  the  world  war  has  had  its  effect  of  cutting  off  com- 
munications and  delaying  the  completion  of  the  work.  At  this 
distance  from  the  manuscript  sources,  Mr.  Charles  Johnson  of  the 
Public  Record  Office  has  been  my  constaiit  ally.  He  has  read  all 
the  proofs,  corrected  many  a  doubtful  passage,  and  out  of  his  expert 
knowledge  contributed  materially  to  the  notes.  Finally,  under 
existing  difficulties  of  transportation,  the  Harvard  University 
Press  with  hearty  cooperation  has  solved  the  problem  of  publi- 
cation on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic. 

J.  F.  B. 

poughkeepsie,  n.  y. 
26  June,  1918. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION 

Part  I.    The  Council xi 

Part  II.     Notes  on  the  Cases xlvii 


SELECT  CASES  BEFORE  THE  KING'S  COUNCIL 


PARTIES 

DATE 

SUBJECT 

PAOE 

Boistard  v.  Cumbwell 

1243 

Claim  of  an  alien 

1 

Taylor  v.  Rochester 

1292 

Malfeasance  of  a  judge 

2 

Valence  v.  Bishop  of  Worcester 

1294 

An  excommunication  in  con- 

tempt of  the  king 

5 

Citizens  of  London  v.  Bishop  of  Bath 

1295 

Charges  against  the  treasiu-er 

8 

Bishop  of  Sabina  v.  Bedewynde 

1307 

Claim  of  a  papal  provisor 

18 

Rex  V.  Gerdeston 

1315 

An  ecclesiastical  process  in  con- 

tempt of  the  king 

27 

Cosfeld  V.  Levey s 

1322 

Seizure  at  sea 

32 

Examination  of  Gilbert  Blount 

1350 

Interrogation  of  a  witness 

33 

Rex  V.  Middleton 

1353 

Prosecution    of    a   fraudulent 

escheator 

35 

Rex  V.  William  Rouceby  and  John 

Prosecution  of  an  officer.    Seiz- 

Avenel 

1354 

ure  at  sea 

37 

Burton-on-Trent  v.  Meynell 

1355 

Violence  and  oppression 

41 

Lombards  v.  Mercers'  Company 

1359 

Rights  of  alien  merchants 

42 

Parson  of  Langar  v.  Conyngsby 

1361 

Appeal  from  the  court  of  chiv- 

alry.    Violence 

47 

Molyns  V.  Fiennes 

1365 

Claim  under  treaty 

48 

Ughtred  and  Others  v.  Musgrave 

1366 

Suit  against  a  sheriff 

54 

Lowestoft  V.  Yarmouth 

1378-80 

Confhcting  franchises 

60 

Confessions  of  William  Chamberlain 

Forgery  of  a  testament 

71 

and  John  Martin 

1383 

Taylors  v.  Brembre 

1386 

Complaint  against  the  mayor 

of  London 

74 

Petition  of  the  Hansards 

1389 

Claim  of  aUens  to  indemnity 

76 

Esturmy  v.  Courtenay 

1392 

Maintenance 

77 

Werkesworth  v.  Pensax 

1393 

Violence  and  oppression 

81 

Tenants  of  Winkfield  v.  Abbey  of 

Claim  to  be  tenants  of  royal 

Abingdon 

1394 

demesne 

82 

Hogonona  v.  Friar  Austin 

1401 

Trust  and  false  imprisonment 

85 

Atte  Wode  v.  Clifford 

1402 
ix 

Maintenance  and  embracery 

86 

PARTIES 

Legat  and  another  v.  Wodeward 
Wythum  v.  Men  of  Kampen 
Duval  V.  Countess  of  Arundel 

Danvers  v.  Broket 

Neville  v.  Neville 

Confession  and  Examination  of  John 
Forde 

Examination  into  the  Bedford  Riot 
Giffard  v.  Morton 

Release  of  the  Sureties  of  John  Davy 
Heyron  v.  Proute  and  Others 

Tenants  v.  Waynflete 
Norton  v.  Colyngborne 
Poche  !'.  Idle 
Whele  V.  Fortescue 
Fouquire  v.  Nicole 


CONTENTS 

DATE 

SUBJECT 

PAGE 

1410 

An  invalid  grant 

92 

1418 

Reprisal 

95 

1421 

Claim  of  an  alien.     Local 
franchise 

96 

1433 

Rasure  of  a  record 

97 

1435 

Family  feud 

101 

Illegal  exportation 

103 

1439 

1439 

Riot 

104 

1444 

Abduction  and  violence 

107 

1450-51 

Mainprise 

108 

1460-63 

Claims  against  Merchant 

Staplers 

110 

1462 

Claim  to  be  free  tenants 

114 

c.  1474 

Trust 

115 

1481 

Maintenance 

116 

1482 

Claim  to  be  an  EngUsh  subject 

117 

1432-36 

Suit  for  recovery  of  children 

118 

APPENDIX  I 
In  re  Heyron  v  Proute 121 

APPENDIX  II 

Cases  published  elsewhere 130 


INTRODUCTION 

PART  I 

THE   COUNCIL 

Sources  and  Material  —  Choice  and  Presentation  —  The  Council  as  a  Court  — 
The  Council  and  other  Courts  —  Jurisdiction  —  Procedure. 

1.    SOURCES  AND  MATERIAL 

The  king's  council  is  one  of  the  oldest  themes  of  historical  study  and 
writing.  In  the  fifteenth  century  it  was  noticed  by  Sir  John  Fortescue,  in 
his  Governance  of  England,^  the  earliest  attempt  at  a  constitutional  treatise. 
Because  of  its  connexion  with  the  problems  of  law  under  the  Tudors  and 
the  Stuarts,  it  was  a  subject  of  special  interest  to  the  jurists  of  the  period, 
such  as  William  Hudson,^  Julius  Caesar,'  John  Cowell,*  Thomas  Smith,* 
Edward  Coke,*  and  Matthew  Hale,^  who  saw  its  connexion  with  the  Court 
of  Requests  and  the  Court  of  Star  Chamber.  In  the  nineteenth  century  it 
was  given  due  prominence  in  the  works  of  Nicolas,  Palgrave,  Dicey, 
Stubbs,  and  Maitland.  Each  one  according  to  the  learning  of  his  age  has 
brought  the  subject  a  step  further  into  the  light,  until  it  is  by  no  means  one 
of  the  least  known  of  all  our  legal  and  political  institutions.  But  up  to  the 
present  time  there  has  not  been  published  any  comprehensive  collection  of 
cases  before  the  king  and  council,  upon  which  not  only  the  history  of  the 
council,  but  also  in  proportional  measure  the  history  of  law  must  depend. 
Although  in  inverse  order,  this  was  the  necessary  sequence  of  events,  for  it 
is  only  gradually  that  such  cases  have  been  discovered,  and  only  with  the 
aid  of  many  collateral  publications  can  they  be  studied  to  advantage. 

The  difficulty  of  reaching  the  records  has  been  considerable,  for  the 
council  was  distinctly  not  a  court  of  record;  it  kept  no  regular  roll;  it  main- 
tained no  system  of  collecting  or  preserving  its  records.  Written  for  an 
immediate  purpose,  the  memoranda  of  its  cases  were  scattered  and  lost, 
except  as  they  have  been  preserved  among  the  miscellaneous  papers  of  the 
chancery  and  the  exchequer.    Many  of  these  cases,  it  is  true,  have  been 

1  Ed.  Charles  Plummer  (1885),  espe-  *  Many  passages  are  given  in  his  com- 
cially  chapters  xiv  and  xv;  also  Appendix  pendium  of  law  known  as  The  Interpreter 
containing  a  tract  on  "  Good  Counseill."  (1607). 

2  Treatise  on  the  Star  Chamber,  in  F.  '  The  Commonwealth  of  England  (,1609), 
Hargreave,  Collectanea  Juridica,  vol.  ii.  especially  chapter  iv. 

'  Acts,  Orders  and  Decrees  of  the  King  •  Institutes    of   the   Laws   of  England 

and  Council  (1597).  (1669). 

'  Jurisdiction  of  the  Lords'  House  ( 1 796) . 


XU  CASES  BEFORE  THE  KING'S  COUNCIL 

known  and  cited  by  former  historians  in  the  field,  by  whose  work  we  have 
ourselves  been  guided  and  assisted.  First,  Sir  Edward  Coke,  the  extent  of 
whose  learning  has  not  ceased  to  cause  amazement,  in  his  Fourth  In,stitutes, 
ch.  V,  was  acquainted  with  no  fewer  than  fourteen  cases  prior  to  the  Statute 
establishing  the  Court  of  Star  Chamber  in  1487.  Each  of  these  cases,  with 
one  exception,  the  present  editor  has  succeeded  in  finding  in  its  original 
form;  three  of  them  are  set  forth  in  this  volume,  while  others  have  been 
published  elsewhere.  William  Hudson,  who  wrote  a  treatise  on  the  Star 
Chamber,  dated  1635,  cites  two  cases  of  the  same  period.  Also  Sir  Matthew 
Hale,  in  his  Jurisdiction  of  the  Lords'  House  (1796),  a  work  of  enduring 
value,  has  given  abundant  references  to  court  rolls  still  unprinted,  while 
certain  volumes  of  transcripts  made  under  his  direction,  now  in  the  MSS. 
of  Lincoln's  Inn,  have  supplied  the  earliest  case  in  our  collection,  besides 
pointing  the  way  to  others.  Nearer  to  our  own  time.  Sir  Francis  Palgrave 
made  a  special  study  of  the  masses  of  early  petitions,  parliamentarj'  and 
conciliar,  now  on  file  in  the  Public  Record  Office.  These  can  best  be  uti- 
lized at  present  by  the  aid  of  the  transcripts  in  sixty-six  volumes,  intended 
by  Palgrave  for  publication.  A  few  of  the  most  striking  records  contained 
in  the  petitions  have  been  set  forth  in  his  brief  treatise,  The  Original 
Authority  of  the  King's  Council  (1834).  Of  the  great  work  of  Sir  N.  H. 
Nicolas,  Proceedings  of  the  Privy  Council  (1834-37),  the  most  extensive 
collection  of  this  material  ever  published,  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that  it 
consists  of  minutes,  for  the  most  part  administrative  and  political,  in  the 
order  of  business.  It  contains  few  cases  at  length,  but  many  fragments  of 
judicial  proceedings,  from  which  much  is  to  be  learned  of  their  character 
and  methods  of  procedure.  Another  work  serving  as  a  guide  to  the  original 
sources  is  that  of  Thomas  Madox,  History  of  the  Exchequer  (1711),  which 
contains  the  best  digest  that  has  ever  been  made  of  the  rolls  of  the  excheq- 
uer. By  the  aid  of  his  citations  and  excerpts  at  lea;st  one  of  our  cases  has 
been  obtained,  and  the  way  uncovered  for  more. 

In  editing  his  collection  of  Select  Cases  in  the  Star  Chamber  (Selden 
Society,  vol.  xvi,  1902),  the  late  Mr.  Leadam  found  among  the  files  of  Star 
Chamber  Proceedings  four  cases  that  came  before  the  king  and  council  prior 
to  the  Act  of  1487  on  the  Star  Chamber,  and  two  cases  prior  to  Henry  \'1I. 
The  thought  that  there  might  be  others,  without  which  the  history  of  the 
subject  would  never  be  complete,  led  to  the  compilation  of  the  present 
volume,  whicii  he  did  not  live  to  finish.  "  Until  the  number  and  cliaracter 
of  the  cases  heard  before  the  Council  prior  to  the  Act  of  1487  have  been 
definitely  ascertained,  it  would  be  premature  to  assert  that  the  public  up 
to  that  time  had  recourse  to  the  Common  Law  Courts,  which  they  thence- 
forth deserted  in  favour  of  a  tribunal  less  costly,  less  hazardous,  and  more 
expeditious."  '    Lastly,  the  present  editor,  pursuing  the  subject  from  an 

'  Op  cit.  p.  Ixviii. 


INTRODUCTION  XIU 

earlier  age,  found  the  rolls  abounding  in  cases  that  were  treated  in  whole  or 
part  by  the  council  from  the  thirteenth  century  onward.  A  few  of  these 
were  set  forth  in  the  history  of  The  King's  Council  in  the  Middle  Ages  (1913), 
especially  in  Appendix  III,  under  the  title  Cases  and  Legal  Proceedings. 
Had  the  writer  then  foreseen  the  present  work,  he  would  probably  have 
held  this  part  in  reserve,  in  order  that  the  cases  might  be  kept  together  and 
treated  more  expansively  in  the  volume  now  presented.  As  it  is,  two  cases 
are  now  reproduced,  translated  and  further  annotated,  one  because  of  the 
discovery  of  a  better  text,  the  other  because  of  its  special  interest. 

Besides  the  works  already  mentioned  there  are  various  publications  in 
which  cases  before  the  council  are  incidentally  to  be  found,  printed  but  not 
edited.  The  Placitorum  Abbreviatio  (Rec.  Com.  1811),  faulty  as  its  tran- 
scriptions are,  continues  to  be  the  most  extensive  compilation  that  we  have 
of  extracts  from  the  earliest  court  rolls,  in  which  cases  before  the  curia 
regis,  the  king's  bench,  the  king's  council,  &c.  are  mingled.  The  Rotuli 
Parliamentorum  (Rec.  Com.  1767-77),  especially  in  the  earlier  volumes, 
before  distinctions  between  parliamentary  and  conciliar  proceedings  were 
drawn,  contain  cases  before  the  council  as  well  as  pleas  best  classified  as 
belonging  to  the  king's  bench.  Throughout  the  Middle  Ages  in  fact  cases 
were  likely  to  be  heard  at  alternate  stages  in  parliament  and  before  the 
council.  The  record  may  be  in  whole  or  part  upon  the  Parliament  Roll. 
In  the  case  oiAtte  Wode  v.  Clifford  (infra,  p.  86)  the  Parliament  Roll  is  sup- 
plemented by  the  record  of  the  council.  Since  the  council  had  no  roll  of  its 
own,  whenever  a  permanent  record  of  the  case  was  desired,  a  transcription 
or  "  exemplification,"  as  it  was  called,  might  be  ordered  upon  one  of  the 
rolls  of  the  chancery.  The  dorse  of  the  Close  Roll  was  most  likely  to  be 
used  for  entries  of  this  character,  less  often  the  Patent  Roll.  The  compilers 
of  the  Calendars  of  Close  Rolls  and  Patent  Rolls  have  generally  reproduced 
these  portions  of  the  rolls  at  length,  usually  translated,  sometimes  in  the 
original  language.  Two  or  three  cases  of  interest  may  be  looked  for  in  the 
forthcoming  Calendar  of  Close  Rolls  of  the  reign  of  Richard  II.  Since  these 
cases  are  widely  separated  and  not  easily  brought  together,  it  has  been 
thought  that  a  table  of  such  cases,  as  presented  in  the  Appendix  to  this 
volume,  might  prove  useful. 

Among  the  manuscript  collections  in  the  Public  Record  Office,  none  has 
been  more  constantly  resorted  to  for  the  purposes  of  this  work  than  the 
files  of  Ancient  Petitions,  already  mentioned.  Sometimes  the  petition  and 
its  endorsement  is  the  only  record  of  a  case ;  often  it  is  supplementary  to  the 
record.  At  any  stage  of  a  litigation  in  fact  a  petition  or  counter-petition 
may  be  looked  for.  The  search  is  not  difficult  with  the  aid  of  an  alphabetical 
index  {Lasts  &  Indexes,  P.  R.  0.  vol.  i).  Would  that  the  same  were  true  of 
petitions  in  chancery!  for  the  chancery  was  the  constant  resort  of  suitors 
who  failed  with  parliament  and  the  council.  But  the  Chancery  Proceedings, 
containing  some  300,000  petitions,  are  too  voluminous  for  any  analysis  or 


XIV  CASES  BEFORE  THE   KING'S  COUNCIL 

classification  other  than  the  bundles  in  which  thej'  have  been  preserved. 
In  none  of  our  cases  has  there  been  any  success  in  finding  a  related  petition 
in  chancery.  A  very  important  collection  of  the  chancery,  compiled  in 
recent  years,  is  known  as  Parliamentary  and  Council  Proceedings,  which 
consists  of  miscellaneous  matter,  such  as  petitions,  draughts  of  ordinances 
and  statutes,  records  of  cases,  &c.  some  of  which  are  the  originals  of  what 
is  contained  in  the  Parliament  Rolls.  Several  of  our  earlier  cases  come  from 
this  source.  But  as  council  and  parliament  grew  apart,  these  materials  are 
more  parliamentary  and  less  conciliar.  It  is  otherwise  with  a  parallel  com- 
pilation of  Parliamentary  and  Council  Proceedings  taken  from  the  Excheq- 
uer. This  consists  of  documents  sunilar  to  the  former,  which  for  adminis- 
trative reasons  were  given  into  the  custody  of  the  king's  remembrancer.  As 
the  exchequer  instead  of  the  chancery  became  the  regular  depository  of 
the  coimcil,  it  is  altogether  natural  that  typical  cases  of  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury should  be  found  here.  It  is  by  an  acquaintance  with  the  administra- 
tive methods  of  the  council,  that  its  records  can  best  be  traced.  From  the 
time  of  Richard  II  its  secretarial  work  was  regularly  performed  by  clerks 
of  the  privy  seal,  its  acts  were  normally  carried  into  execution  by  writs  of 
the  privy  seal,  and  so  among  the  files  of  this  department  the  records  of  its 
judicial  and  other  proceedings  are  most  likely  to  be  found.  Particularly  a 
series  known  as  Warrants,  Council  and  Privy  Seal  (Exchequer,  T.  R.)  is 
made  up  of  letters  under  the  signet,  letters  and  orders  unsealed,  which  were 
received  by  the  keeper  as  warrants  for  the  issue  of  letters  under  the  privj' 
seal.  In  the  case  of  The  Bedford  Riot  (infra,  p.  104)  we  are  fortunate  enough 
to  have  the  original  record  of  the  office  of  the  privy  seal  as  well  as  an  exem- 
plification in  the  chancery.  But  outside  of  the  regular  depositories  conciliar 
documents  have  been  met  in  the  most  unexpected  places.  In  one  instance 
the  review  of  an  admiralty  case,  probably  because  it  was  referred  to  in 
foreign  correspondence,  is  found  among  Diplomatic  Documents  (Chancery). ' 

2.    CHOICE  AND  PRESENTATION 

So  far  as  choice  is  practicable,  the  effort  of  the  editors  has  been  to  present 
a  variety  of  cases,  in  order  to  illustrate  as  many  problems  of  law  and  pro- 
cedure as  possible.  Not  only  completed  records,  therefore,  but  also  frag- 
ments of  litigation,  particularly  petitions  with  their  endorsements,  con- 
fessions and  examinations,  have  been  utilized  for  the  purpose.  Whenever 
it  has  been  possible,  the  connexion  with  an  earlier  or  later  stage  of  litigation 
has  been  shewn  in  the  notes.  A  consequent  writ  is  often  a  valuable  addition 
to  the  simple  record.  Moreover,  as  legislation  and  judicature  were  never 
separate  in  the  mind  of  the  council,  the  cases  often  have  a  bearing  upon  the 
statutes  and  other  matters  of  public  policy.  Thus  the  case  of  the  Bishop  of 
Sabina  v.  Bedewynde  (p.  18),  in  connexion  with  others  of  the  same  kind, 

'  Given  in  The  King's  Council,  p.  507. 


INTRODUCTION  XV 

led  directly  to  the  Statute  of  Provisors.  Rex  v.  Middleton  (p.  35)  has  little 
value  as  a  question  of  law,  but  it  was  connected  with  an  extensive  reform  in 
the  appointment  of  sheriffs  and  cscheators.  Ughtred  v.  Musgrave  (p.  54) 
was  a  step  in  the  gradual  diminution  of  the  judicial  powers  of  the  sheriffs. 
Gijjard  v.  Morton  (p.  107)  was  antecedent  to  a  statute.  Every  case  indeed 
has  its  special  bearing  upon  some  larger  problem.  So  far  as  this  has  been 
learned,  it  has  been  made  the  subject  of  treatment  in  the  notes  and  com- 
ments set  down  in  the  second  part  of  the  Introduction. 

The  Latin  and  French  languages  were  both  used  by  the  council  alter- 
nately and  interchangeably,  until  the  appropriateness  of  the  former  to 
matters  of  common  law  and  of  the  latter  to  proceedings  in  equity  was  per- 
ceived. After  the  method  of  previous  volumes  of  the  Selden  Society  these 
texts  have  been  translated  upon  the  right-hand  pages.  English  texts  of  the 
fifteenth  century  can  easily  be  read  with  the  aid  of  a  few  footnotes.  After 
some  hesitation  it  has  seemed  best  to  keep  proper  names  as  a  rule  in  their 
contemporary  form.  There  is  a  temptation  in  the  translation  to  modernize 
such  forms  as  "  Bedewyndc,"  "  Leveys,"  "  Atte  Wode,"  "  Broket,"  &c. 
In  a  literary  work  "  Bedwin,"  "  Atwood,"  &c.  would  be  preferable,  but  in 
matters  of  record  there  are  reasons  in  favour  of  the  archaic  spelling.  It  is 
true,  spelling  was  by  no  means  uniform.  In  the  same  record  a  name  appears 
both  as  "  Stafferton  "  and  "  Staverton,"  "  Poche  "  and  "  Pouche."  Still 
there  was  a  preferred  spelling  and  the  likelihood  is  that  "  Conyngsby  "  will 
be  more  accurately  traced  under  this  form  than  "  Coningsby  "  and  "  Hey- 
ron  "  than  "  Heron."  A  certain  deference  to  the  correcter  form  of  a  name 
was  sometimes  shown,  as  in  the  case  of  William  "  Esturmy  alias  Sturmy." 

3.    THE  COUNCIL  AS  A  COURT 

In  the  controversy  that  raged  around  the  Court  of  Star  Chamber  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  it  was  questioned  whether  the  king's  council  was  in 
any  proper  sense  a  law  court,  or  had  any  judicial  authority  apart  from  the 
statutes  defining  it.'  In  view  of  what  has  since  been  written,  no  one  will 
doubt  that  the  council  was  a  court  resting  upon  the  most  substantial  his- 
torical foundations.  But  what  were  its  judicial  functions,  to  what  extent 
and  in  what  manner  were  they  exercised,  are  still  a  matter  of  inquiry.  To 
what  extent,  are  we  to  believe,  did  the  council  undertake  the  hearing  of 
cases  ?  It  is  a  question  of  some  moment  whether  the  cases  collected  in  the 
present  volume  are  to  be  regarded  as  illustrations  of  a  jurisdiction  regularly 
■exercised,  or  as  instances  of  an  infrequent  and  exceptional  intervention. 

Sir  Edward  Coke,  writing  on  the  antecedents  of  the  Star  Chamber,  pro- 
pounded the  following  view:  "  This  court  in  ancient  times  sat  rarely,  for 
three  causes:  First,  for  that  enormous  and  exorbitant  causes  which  this 
■court  dealt  withall  only  in  these  days  rarely  fell  out.    Secondly,  this  court 

'  See  W.  F.  Finlason,  The  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  (1878). 


XVI  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S  COUNCIL 

dealt  not  with  such  causes  as  other  courts  of  ordinary  justice  might  con- 
dignly  punish,  ne  dignitas  hujus  curiae  vilesceret.  Thirdly,  it  very  rarely 
did  sit,  lest  it  should  draw  the  king's  privy  council  from  matters  of  grace, 
-pro  bono  publico,  to  hear  private  causes,  and  the  principal  judges  from  their 
ordinary  courts  of  justice."  '  Here  the  fundamental  mistake,  which  has 
often  been  repeated,  lies  in  the  thought  that  there  was  a  judicial  body  in 
the  star  chamber  apart  from  the  king's  privy  council.  From  time  to  time, 
it  is  true,  there  appear  to  be  potentially  two  branches  of  the  council,  the 
one  attending  the  king  wherever  he  might  be,  at  home  or  abroad,  often 
designated  as  "  about  the  king's  person,"  "  whom  he  might  have  with 
him,"  the  other  remaining  at  London  or  Westminster.  Sometimes  there 
was  correspondence  between  the  two  branches,  or  a  conveyance  of  bills 
from  one  to  the  other,  but  never  was  any  organic  separation  effected. 
Much  less  was  there  any  division  of  functions,  such  as  consultation  and' 
administration  for  one  group  and  judicature  for  the  other.  It  was  no  doubt 
because  of  the  greater  weight  of  judicial  business  and  the  close  connexion 
with  other  courts,  that  the  council  at  London  from  the  time  of  Edward  I 
became  the  principal  centre.  The  king  himself  was  rarely  present,  and 
dealt  with  his  councillors  there  largely  by  correspondence  (e.  g.,  Sabina  v. 
Bedewynde,  p.  18).  This  was  the  preference  expressed  by  the  commons  in 
1406,  when  they  asked  the  king  to  send  all  bills,  by  some  of  the  councillors 
attending  him,  to  the  council  remaining  at  Westminster.^ 

Different  from  the  modern  Court  of  Star  Chamber,  the  medieval  council 
had  no  specific  organization  as  a  court.  Though  it  might  be  called  curia,  it 
bore  no  name  comparable  to  the  "  High  Court  of  Parliament."  It  had  no 
roll,  no  seal,  no  process  pertaining  exclusively  to  it.  There  were  no  stated 
judicial  sessions  or  law  days,  though  it  was  declared  on  occasion  to  be 
"  sitting  judicially."  '  It  customarily  observed  the  tenns  set  for  the  king's 
courts,  but  did  not  even  then  manage  its  judicial  business  in  any  way  apart 
from  political  and  administrative.  There  is  a  slight  suggestion  also  that 
Wednesdays  and  Fridays,  the  traditional  days  of  the  later  court,  were 
appropriate  days  for  suitors.^  The  council  was  well  fitted  for  judicial  work 
in  its  personnel,  which  included,  in  addition  to  lords  and  knights,  an  ex 
officio  clement  in  the  justices  of  both  benches,  the  barons  of  the  exchequer, 
the  Serjeants  and  others  "  skilled  in  the  law."  As  to  the  position  of  these 
professional  men,  there  has  been  considerable  discussion  whether  they  are 
to  be  considered  as  "members  "  of  the  council  or  merely  "advisers"  therein. 
We  shall  avoid  confusion,  if  in  this  connexion  wc  drop  the  word  "member" 
as  an  anachronism.  In  the  middle  ages  a  man  was  a  "  councillor  "  or 
"  counsellor,"  "  sworn  of  the  council,"  "  retained  of  the  council,"  "  ap- 
pointed to  the  council,"  but  never  would  he  be  spoken  of  as  a  "  member." 

'  4  Insl.  p.  61.  •  Petitions    were    to    be   received    on 

•  Rol.  Pari,  iii,  586.  Wednesdays   and    returned    on    Fridays. 

»  Cal.  Close  Rolh,  1  Ric.  II,  p.  36.  Nicolaa,  iii,  149. 


INTRODUCTION  XVll 

He  might  be  of  the  council  for  life,  "  for  the  time,"  or,  "  especially  ap- 
pointed." Likewise  he  might  give  or  be  asked  for  his  "  advice  "  or  "  opinion," 
but  was  not  said  to  "  vote."  Moreover  the  king's  council  was  intended  to 
consist  not  of  a  single  class  of  councillors,  but  "  of  all  conditions  of  men, 
like  another  parliament,  spiritual  and  temporal,  nobles  and  lawyers  com- 
mon &  civil,  and  so  fit  to  discern,  order  &  dispose  of  all  things  in  the  uni- 
versal government."  '  Unlike  parliament  there  was  no  particular  class  or 
estate  which  might  claim  to  be  included  in  the  council.  The  statement  that 
"  the  king  summons  whom  he  wills  to  his  councils  "  was  here  the  effective 
rule.  Now  the  justices,  in  the  time  of  Edward  I,  were  regularly  sworn  of 
the  council;  they  attended  its  meetings  when  summoned  and  rendered 
their  advice.  Sometimes  they  acted  jointly  with  the  lords  spiritual  and 
temporal,  as  a  lesser  estate.^  Often  in  the  treatment  of  legal  questions  they 
were  the  only  councillors  in  attendance.'  On  one  occasion  an  investigation 
was  being  held  before  the  justices  in  first  instance,  and  afterwards  there 
were  present  others  "  of  more  importance."  ^  From  the  time  of  Richard  II, 
when  the  influence  of  the  lords  was  more  powerfully  felt,  the  tendency  was 
to  reduce  the  position  of  the  justices  and  other  officials  still  further.  Their 
attendance  was  henceforth  occasional  and  their  participation  limited  to 
matters  of  judicial  character.  Unless  it  were  in  the  inchoate  court  of  chan- 
cery, the  council  was  never  left  solely  to  its  judicial  attendants.  Still  by 
acts  of  parliament  the  attendance  of  the  justices  was  required  and  their 
advice  was  to  be  asked  for  in  all  legal  questions.  In  the  case  of  Atte  Wode 
V.  Clifford  (p.  91),  it  is  shown  how  their  advice  was  sought  upon  the  final 
form  of  the  record.  Again  it  is  recorded  how  they  were  asked  individually 
for  their  opinions.  They  were  no  less  truly  king's  councillors  because  they 
stood  on  a  different  plane  from  the  lords  and  knights.  They  were  also 
specially  serviceable  in  the  committees  of  examination,  of  which  more  will 
be  said.  Such  was  the  status  claimed  at  a  crisis  by  the  justices  themselves, 
who  declared  that  they  were  the  "  king's  councillors  in  law,"  but  were  not 
to  be  considered  such  "  between  party  and  party  ";  *  in  other  words  they 
were  to  state  the  law  but  not  to  give  judgment.  Whether  the  justices  and 
other  officers  then  were  members  or  advisers,  it  seems  sufficient  to  say  in 
the  sage  words  of  Sir  John  Fortescue,  "  they  be  of  this  council  when  they 
be  so  desired,  else  not." 

At  all  times  the  council  served  as  a  body  of  consultation  and  advice  for 
the  justices  in  any  legal  difficulty.  This  practice  is  perhaps  traceable  to  the 
act  of  Henry  II  in  1178,  requiring  the  justices  of  the  bench  then  appointed, 
whenever  any  question  should  arise  which  they  could  not  decide  by  them- 

'  Hudson  in  Collectanea  Jur.  ii,  52.  council   learned   in   the   law."    Cal.  Pat, 

2  Fait  a  remembrerqele  Roy, Seigneurs,  Rolls,  28  Ed.  Ill,  p.  153;  also  Cal.  Close 

Chivalers  et  Justices  assenterent  en  cest  Rolls,  4  Ric.  II,  p.  457. 

present  Parlement.    Rot.  Pari,  iii,  315.  '  Cal.  Pat.  Rolh,  20  Ed.  Ill,  p.  135. 

'  A   determination  was   once  reached  '  Rot.  Pari,  v,  376. 

"  because  it  seems  good  to  those  of  the 


XVIU  CASES  BEFORE  THE   KING'S  COUNCIL 

selves,  to  consult  with  the  king  and  his  sapientiores.^  So  long  as  the  fun- 
damental unity  of  the  courts  was  maintained,  it  was  natural  that  the  council 
should  be  consulted  whenever  the  justices  were  uncertain  of  their  ground. 
The  cases  of  the  thirteenth  centurj"^  abound  in  references  of  this  kind  to  the 
council,  which  then  appears  not  in  the  light  of  a  higher  or  a  distant  tribunal, 
but  a  larger  assemblage,  often  quickly  summoned,  of  the  existing  court. 
The  greater  distinctness  of  the  courts,  as  effected  in  the  fourteenth  century, 
hardly  lessened  the  practice  of  the  justices  meeting  in  council  for  the  pur- 
poses of  discussion.^  The  court  of  common  pleas  was  once  in  a  quandary  over 
its  inability  to  put  a  judgment  into  execution.  The  justices  were  divided 
in  opinion,  when  the  chief  justice  concluded,  "  we  have  spoken  to  the  coun- 
cil respecting  this  mischief ;  (to  one  of  the  litigants)  go  you  to  the  chancery 
and  you  will  have  a  7ion  obstante  writ  directing  us  to  effect  execution." ' 
The  council  was  not  a  court  of  appeals;  the  common-law  courts  themselves 
denied  its  right  to  review  their  judgments  on  allegation  of  error.  Yet  some- 
thing to  the  same  effect  was  granted  in  its  power  to  determine  a  point  of 
procedure.  The  Statute  13  Ric.  II,  c.  2,  lays  down  that  if  anyone  complain 
that  a  plea  pending  in  the  court  of  chivalry  should  be  tried  by  common  law, 
he  shall  have  a  writ  to  surcease  until  it  be  discussed  by  the  king's  council 
whether  the  matter  ought  to  be  tried  in  that  court  or  by  common  law. 

It  is  abundantly  evident  that  the  principal  attention  of  the  council,  in 
judicial  matters,  was  given  not  to  the  hearing  of  cases  at  length,  but  to 
facilitating  their  hearing  by  other  courts.  This  was  done  to  the  best  advan- 
tage by  answering  the  petitions  that  were  presented  in  indefinite  number. 
There  were  petitions  of  grace,  asking  for  favour,  and  petitions  of  right, 
requiring  judicial  action,  but  in  hearing  them  no  separation  was  made  of 
the  one  class  from  the  other.  Every  petition  in  fact  was  a  request  for  a 
measure  of  the  king's  grace.  According  to  a  well  established  custom,  peti- 
tions of  law  should  be  presented  in  parliament,  wherein  special  committees 
were  appointed  to  receive  and  hear  them,  but  parliament  was  unable  to  deal 
with  them  all.  In  the  time  of  Edward  III  it  became  a  matter  of  urgency 
that  petitions  should  be  heard  before  the  close  of  the  session,  and  it  was 
sometimes  a  grievance  that  they  were  not  heard  but  left  over  "  from  par- 
liament to  parliament,"  while  petitioners  must  sue  and  sue  again.  Under 
these  conditions  petitioners  sought  the  council  as  an  alternative.  In  the 
Parson  of  hangar  v.  Conyngshy  (p.  48)  we  see  a  petitioner,  who  was  forcibly 
prevented  from  suing  in  time  of  parliament,  turning  then  to  the  council  for 
relief.  Parliament  was  jealous  of  this  tendency.  In  the  reign  of  Richard  II 
it  distinguished  between  those  i:)Ctitions  which  could  be  considered  only  in 
parliament  and  those  which  could  be  considered  apart  by  the  council.^ 

I  Dencdict     of     Peterborough     (Rolls  Year  Books  (Rolls  Series),  20  Ed.  Ill,  ii, 

Series),  i,  207.  127. 

'  Et  puis  apres  en  Counsail  fust  ceste  '  Ibid.  17-18  Ed.  Ill,  p.  12. 

chose  abatu  coram  Justiciariis  omnibus.  *  Rot.  Purl,  iii,  103. 


INTRODUCTION  XIX 

Except  as  the  statutes  limited  the  council  in  certain  respects,  it  is  difficult 
to  see  what  was  intended  by  this  classification.  Moreover  in  spite  of  its 
suspicion  of  the  council,  parliament  under  the  Lancastrians  was  wont  to 
leave  at  the  close  of  its  sessions  whole  masses  of  unconsidered  petitions, 
under  requirements  that  it  should  answer  them  within  a  limited  time,  that 
it  should  act  with  the  advice  of  the  justices,  or  perhaps  cause  the  bills  to  be 
recorded  upon  the  Rolls  of  Parliament.'  The  answer  to  a  petition  was 
usually  given  in  an  endorsement  solving  the  difficulty;  it  might  name  the 
writ  or  direct  the  parties  to  the  proper  court ;  it  might  convey  also  a  positive 
opinion  for  the  guidance  of  the  justices.  According  to  an  often  repeated 
regulation,  the  council  was  to  turn  over  to  the  courts  all  matters  touching 
the  common  law.  Lest  private  interests  encroach  on  public  business,  the 
council  was  enjoined  to  deal  with  the  king's  business  first.  According  to  a 
rule  laid  down  in  1424  suitors  were  to  present  their  petitions  on  a  Wednes- 
day, and  find  them  answered  and  returned  on  the  following  Friday;^  to 
this  a  proviso  was  added  in  1426  "  unless  great  and  notable  causes  touching 
the  king's  realm  and  his  lordships  hinder." '  Under  the  difficulties  of 
getting  answers  to  their  petitions,  suitors  were  importuning  individual 
councillors,  so  that  for  the  sake  of  fairness  it  was  enacted  that  lords  of  the 
council  should  grant  no  favour  in  any  suit  but  reply  that  the  bill  should  be 
seen  by  all  and  the  party  have  answer.''  Other  means  resorted  to  by  im- 
portunate suitors  was  to  address  their  petitions  to  the  Lord  Protector  and 
other  individual  lords  of  the  council. ^  Altogether  there  is  evidence  that  the 
council  in  addition  to  its  other  duties  was  overburdened  with  the  load  of 
petitions.  Following  the  example  of  parliament,  on  one  occasion  at  the 
close  of  a  term  it  ordered  that  a  pending  plea,  together  with  all  remaining 
petitions  and  acts,  should  be  committed  to  the  lord  chancellor  to  be  deter- 
mined in  the  chancery.*  Thus  out  of  the  business  that  parliament  and  the 
council  had  not  the  time  or  the  energy  to  perform,  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
chancery  was  being  built  up. 

Finally,  as  to  the  cases  heard  at  length  and  terminated  by  the  council, 
the  evidence  is  that  these  formed  the  smallest  part  of  the  business  taken  up. 
This  was  less  from  the  lack  of  "  enormous  causes,"  as  Coke  supposed,  than 
from  the  inability  of  the  council  to  give  them  attention.  Even  if  a  prelimi- 
nary examination  or  a  partial  hearing  was  granted,  the  matter  was  most 
likely  to  be  given  to  one  of  the  courts,  a  board  of  arbitration,  or  a  special 
commission  for  determination  (e.  g.  Burton  v.  Meynell,  p.  41).  "When 
further  hearing  was  possible,  the  cases  were  taken  up  in  the  midst  of  other 
public  business,  quickly  adjourned,  and  after  repeated  postponements 
might  fail  of  a  final  decision.    Of  cases  that  were  fully  treated,  it  would  be 

'  Rol.  Pari,  iv,  174,  285,  301,  etc.  '  Examples  are  given  in   The  King's 

'  Nicolas,  iii,  149.  Council,  pp.  330  f . 

3  Ibid.  p.  214.  •  Nicolas,  iii,  36. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  149,  214.     ' 


XX  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S  COUNCIL 

difficult  now  to  count  as  many  as  a  hundred  for  the  two  centuries  prior  to 
1485.  Loss  of  records  has  without  doubt  occurred,  but  there  is  corrobora- 
tive evidence  that  the  loss  was  not  a  large  fraction  of  the  whole.  It  was 
impossible  in  fact  for  the  councillors  of  the  fifteenth  century,  in  addition  to 
their  administrative  and  political  work,  fully  to  perform  their  judicial  duties. 
The  need  of  a  special  branch  of  the  council  for  this  purpose  was  felt  long 
before  such  a  departure  was  attempted. 

4.  THE  COUNCIL  AND  OTHER  COURTS 

A  problem  that  has  been  discussed  before,  but  which  seems  still  open  to 
argument,  is  the  relation  of  the  council  to  several  kindred  courts  of  law. 
The  council,  says  Dicey,  "  is  nothing  more  than  the  Curia  Regis  when 
separated  from  the  judicial  tribunals."  '  In  the  words  of  Sir  Matthew  Hale 
it  is  "  the  common  mother  "  of  all  the  courts  of  justice  in  the  realm.'  To 
some  this  has  seemed  a  mere  superficial  theory;  even  if  it  be  accepted,  it 
does  not  explain  the  manner  of  differentiation  and  the  continued  connexion 
of  the  parent  stem  with  its  offshoots.  No  two  courts  in  their  formation  were 
alike,  and  analogies  were  slightly  heeded.  Some  of  the  records  before  us, 
in  addition  to  other  pieces  of  evidence,  may  help  to  elucidate  the  matter. 

In  the  time  of  Edward  I  there  were  several  bodies  in  the  state  that  were 
not  as  yet  organically  distinct,  namely  parliament,  the  council,  and  the 
king's  bench.  The  exchequer,  while  it  had  reached  a  definitive  form  as  a 
department  of  finance,  in  its  judicial  functions  was  still  as  uncertain  of  its 
field  as  the  court  of  king's  bench.  In  his  illuminating  introduction  to  the 
Roll  of  the  Parliament  of  1305  Maitland  has  pointed  out  that  in  the  four- 
teenth century  "  a  parliament  is  rather  an  act  than  a  body  of  persons.  .  .  . 
Any  meeting  of  the  king's  council  that  has  been  solemnly  summoned  for 
general  purposes  seems  to  be  a  parliament."  '  In  the  words  of  Mr.  Leadam, 
a  parliament  was  then  a  "  sessional  proceeding  of  the  council,"  somctunes 
held  when  all  the  estates  were  sitting,  often  after  these  had  been  dismissed. 
The  "  council  in  parliament,"  as  it  was  usually  called,  held  such  prestige 
over  the  "  council  out  of  parliament,"  to  use  another  contemporary  phrase, 
that  the  records  seldom  leave  us  in  doubt  as  to  which  is  meant.  Now  the 
parliaments  of  Edward  I  were  more  widely  inclusive  of  the  estates  and 
other  public  bodies  than  they  afterwards  became.  Besides  the  greater 
estates  of  clergy  and  barons,  there  were  the  official  councillors  numbering 
more  than  a  score,  while  even  the  courts  of  law  were  for  the  moment 
brought  together  under  a  single  institution.  Pleas  that  would  otherwise 
pertain  to  the  king's  bench  are  recorded  as  being  held  coram  rege  in  parlia- 
mento.  Even  the  exchequer  came  under  the  same  influence,  for  on  one 
occasion  an  action  is  reported  as  having  been  taken  ad  scaccarium  in  par- 

'  The  Privy  Council  (1887),  p.  6.  •  Memoranda    de    Parliamenlo    (Rolls 

'  JuTisdiclion  of  the  Lords'  House,  c.  iv.      Series),  p.  Ixvii. 


INTRODUCTION  XXI 

liamento.^  It  was  not  necessary  that  the  lords  should  participate  in  all  the 
acts  of  the  council  or  of  other  courts ;  their  more  presence  lent  dignity,  not 
to  say  authority,  to  all  that  was  done.  In  one  instance  an  appeal  in  parlia- 
ment was  heard,  as  the  record  states,  "before  the  chancellor,  the  treasurer, 
the  justices  of  both  benches  and  others  of  the  council  ";  ^  the  lords  appar- 
ently took  no  part,  but  the  proceedings  were  none  the  less  in  parliament. 
Whatever  was  begun  in  parliament  and  continued  afterwards  before  the 
council  was  likely  to  be  given  the  same  general  sanction.  In  the  case  of 
Rex  V.  Gerdeslon  (p.  27)  the  parliament  closed  on  9  March,  1315,  and  the 
hearing  was  begun  on  the  following  30  April,  yet  for  some  reason  that  is  not 
evident  it  was  said  to  have  been  heard  before  the  council  in  parliament. 
We  have  several  cases  of  the  kind,  which  therefore  failed  of  being  entered 
upon  the  Parliament  Roll.  The  theoretical  rather  than  the  actual  presence 
of  parliament  is  illustrated  by  a  singular  incident  that  occurred  in  1397.'  A 
certain  suitor  on  his  way  to  court  was  waylaid  by  his  opponents  and  foully 
murdered  in  Fleet  Street,  London;  the  deed  was  considered  especially 
atrocious  because  it  was  done  "  in  the  presence  of  the  king  and  the  whole 
parliament."  It  is  true,  parliament  was  sitting  at  the  time,  but  not  in 
Fleet  Street.  Our  records  will  shew  that  at  any  stage  a  case  before  the 
council  might  be  treated  in  parliamentary  session  without  change  in  the 
character  of  the  proceedings  beyond  the  manifest  advantages  of  larger 
attendance,  wider  discussion  and  stronger  sanction.  Parliament  was 
indeed  slow  to  regard  the  council  as  a  court  distinct  from  itself.  In  the 
incident  just  cited  the  suit  was  said  to  be  pending  "  in  parliament  and 
before  the  council."  Our  case  of  Atte  Wode  v.  Clifford,  which  was  formally 
referred  by  parliament  to  the  council  (p.  88),  indicates  how  this  line  of 
demarcation  came  to  be  drawn. 

For  an  indefinite  time  the  branch  of  the  curia  regis  known  as  the  court 
coram  rege,  or  the  king's  bench,  was  of  similar  elasticity.  Unlike  the  court 
of  common  pleas,  which  was  founded  for  a  specific  purpose,  it  retained  the 
traditions  of  the  time  when  the  king's  court  was  a  general  assemblage  of 
barons  and  officers.  In  the  time  of  Henry  III  its  sessions  were  usually 
before  the  appointed  justices,  and  in  this  light  it  was  defined  by  Bracton,"* 
but  in  the  same  roll  pleas  before  the  council  alternate  with  pleas  before  the 
justices  without  material  change  either  in  the  character  of  the  court  or  the 
pleas  themselves.  Moreover  a  case  before  the  justices  might  become  a  case 
before  the  council  not  by  an  appeal  or  change  of  venue,  but  by  a  postpone- 
ment until  the  council,  possibly  the  council  in  parliament,  should  assemble. 
Our  first  case,  Boistard  v.  Cumbwell  (p.  1),  in  dealing  with  the  claims  of  a 
foreigner,  shows  why  the  presence  of  a  conciliar  body  was  desired.  Some- 
times the  council  under  these  conditions  included  lords  in  indefinite  number; 
sometimes  there  is  reason  to  say  it  was  nothing  more  than  a  conference  of 

'  Madox,  Hist,  of  Exch.  ii,  8.  '  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  22  Ric.  II,  427. 

»  Rot.  Pari,  ii,  122.  *  De  Legibus  (Rolls  Series),  ii,  180  S. 


XXU  CASES  BEFORE  THE  KING'S  COUNCIL 

justices.  The  larger  court  was  not  "  a  higher  power,"  as  ]\Iaitland  once 
said,  much  less  was  it  a  different  power;  it  was  essentially  the  same  court 
however  much  it  gained  in  dignity  and  collective  wisdom. 

By  the  time  of  Edward  I  the  king's  bench  had  become  predominantly  a 
court  of  cormnon  law.  It  is  so  regarded  by  Britton,  who  says  of  the  justices 
"  their  jurisdiction  and  record  shall  extend  so  far  as  we  shall  authorize  by 
our  writs."  '  He  also  mentions  it  as  an  alternative  court  to  the  king's 
council.  The  same  distinction  will  be  found  in  the  records  of  the  court 
itself.  At  the  same  time  the  rolls  are  interspersed  with  conciliar  and  par- 
liamentary cases,  such  as  Valence  v.  Bishop  of  Worcestei-  (p.  5)  and  Rex  v. 
Gerdeston  (p.  27).  There  were  also  variants  of  law  and  procedure,  such  as 
the  acceptance  of  a  wi'it  not  in  legal  form,  the  suit  of  a  foreigner,  a  trial 
without  indictment,  which  were  significant  of  the  existence  potentially  of 
two  tribunals,  though  they  were  not  so  understood  at  the  time.  In  one  case 
a  litigant  was  told  to  sue  at  common  law  if  he  wished ;  ^  the  process  then 
before  the  court  was  not  such.  Late  into  the  reign  of  Edward  III  the 
records  still  contain  the  proceedings  of  both  court  and  council.  But  by  that 
time,  as  we  shall  shew,  the  features  of  conciliar  procedure  had  become  so 
distinct  from  the  common  law,  that  there  was  no  longer  any  reason  for 
confusion. 

In  its  earliest  days  the  exchequer  was  not  named  as  a  court.  The  tri- 
bunal was  designated  preferably  as  "  the  king's  court  in  the  exchequer." 
There  seems  to  have  been  a  survival  of  this  idea  in  the  practice  of  the 
council  sitting  in  the  exchequer,  as  illustrated  in  our  case  of  the  Bishop  of 
Sabina  v.  Bedewynde  (p.  18).  This  was  properly  an  exchequer  case,  accord- 
ing to  the  pri^vileges  of  this  body,  in  that  it  afTected  the  rights  of  one  of  its 
officers;  it  was  also  a  case  for  the  council  in  that  it  was  a  dispute  over  the 
king's  right  in  a  question  of  church  and  state.  The  court  was  then  a  special 
assemblage  of  lords  and  officers,  who  were  called  by  the  king's  writ  into  the 
exchequer,  to  hear  the  matter  and,  in  the  words  denoting  its  extraordinary 
character,  "  ordain  what  should  be  done  according  to  right  and  reason." 
The  proceedings  were  after  the  methods  of  the  council;  a  reading  of  the 
petition,  the  pleadings  of  the  parties  in  turn,  a  search  of  the  records,  a  hear- 
ing of  written  evidence,  deliberation  and  discussion,  and  finally  a  deter- 
mination of  the  question  and  a  report  to  the  king.  The  process  was  after- 
wards read  before  the  treasurer  and  barons  of  the  exchequer,  who  ordered 
it  to  be  engrossed  upon  the  Memoranda  Rolls,  and  a  copy  sealed  with  the 
seal  of  the  exchequer  was  given  to  the  successful  defendant.  In  these  pro- 
ceedings it  seems  quite  inadequate  to  say  that  the  council  was  merely  a 
reinforcement  of  the  exchequer,  or  happened  at  the  moment  to  be  occupy- 
ing its  house.'  It  was  rather  the  original  court,  which  was  still  innnaiicnt 
in  the  exchequer,  and  served  for  the  occasion  by  the  administrative  agencies 

'  Ed.  F.  M.  Nichols  (1865),  ii,  c.  4.  '  This  is  the  contention  of  Professor 

»  Abb.  Plac.  p.  353.  Tout,  Eng.  IIUl.  Rev.  Jan.  1915,  p.  119. 


INTRODUCTION  XXIU 

of  this  department.  There  were  other  cases  before  "  the  council  at  the 
exchequer,"  according  to  a  contemporary  phrase,  but  their  great  length 
has  deterred  us  from  presenting  them  here. 

More  than  of  the  exchequer,  our  selections  will  shew  the  vital  connexion 
of  coimcil  and  chancery.  It  is  a  singular  phenomenon  that  the  court  of 
chancery,  which  began  with  a  closely  restricted  jurisdiction,  should  in  time 
be  granted  the  greatest  amount  of  discretionary  power.  This  development 
was  not  an  expansion  of  the  original  functions  of  the  court,  which  were 
purely  legal  and  formal;  much  less  was  it  due  to  any  inherent  capacity  of 
the  chancery  or  its  officers.  Neither  was  it  primarily  an  outgrowth  of  the 
individual  powers  of  the  chancellor.  The  origin  of  a  court  of  extraordinary 
authority  is  found  rather  in  the  practice,  noticed  early  in  the  fourteenth 
century,  of  assembling  the  council  whenever  a  point  arose  in  the  chancery 
requiring  discussion  and  deliberation.  It  might  pertain  to  the  formulation 
of  a  writ  or  a  case  under  adjudication.  The  assemblage,  known  as  con- 
silium  in  cancellaria,  was  larger  or  smaller  according  to  the  interests  in- 
volved, or  perhaps  the  convenience  of  the  occasion;  sometimes  it  was 
predominantly  of  barons,  often  of  judges  and  officers.'  At  this  time  it  is 
the  same  whether  we  speak  of  the  common  law  or  the  equitable  side  of  the 
chancery,  a  distinction  that  can  be  perceived  not  in  the  composition  of  the 
court  but  in  the  character  of  the  cases.  In  its  primitive  form  the  court  was 
an  assemblage  especially  called  for  each  separate  case.  It  was  given  author- 
ity ad  hoc  by  the  king's  writ  directed  to  the  chancellor,  who  was  to  summon 
the  council ;  with  a  certain  degree  of  discretion  he  is  to  call  "those  remaining 
at  London,"  "  whom  he  sees  fit,"  or  "  enough  to  do  justice."  The  chancel- 
■  lor  then  cites  the  parties  to  appear,  he  presides  over  the  court,  he  asks  a 
question,  he  answers  an  objection,  he  executes  the  order  of  the  court.  His 
functions  enlarge  rapidly.  Before  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Edward  III 
suitors  were  addressing  petitions  to  the  chancellor,  or  the  chancellor  and 
council.  In  these  petitions,  it  does  not  appear  that  suitors  regard  him  as 
more  than  an  executive  officer  and  their  most  feasible  means  of  approach 
to  the  council.  By  the  time  of  Richard  II  he  was  able  to  summon  the  court 
on  his  own  authority  without  the  initiatory  writ  of  the  king.  Yet  it  is  not 
shown  that  even  then  the  chancellor  was  ever  sole  judge  or  even  the  pre- 
dominant judge  in  the  court  over  which  he  presided.  The  stage  of  develop- 
ment then  reached  is  illustrated  in  the  suit  of  Joan  Celers,^  who  petitioned 
the  chancellor  for  the  recovery  of  money  that  had  dropped  out  of  a  cart  into 
the  road  and  was  stolen  by  "  certain  men  "  of  Dunstable.  In  consideration 
of  her  poor  estate  and  lack  of  means  to  sue  at  common  law,  the  chancellor 
caused  the  men,  who  were  reputed  to  be  the  finders  of  the  money,  to  be 

'  In  the  case  oi  the  Prior  of  Coventry  y.  council.    Miscellaneous  Rolls  (Chancery), 

Queen  Isabel  heard  in   1336,  the  assem-  18/22. 

blage  consisted  of  one, bishop,  one  earl,  ^  Cal.  Close  Rolls,  4  Kic.  II,  ^75. 

two  lords,  four  justices  and  others  of  the 


XXIV  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S  COUNCIL 

brought  into  the  chancery  where  they  were  examined.  It  was  then  "  the 
court,"  not  the  chancellor,  that  ordered  the  defendants  to  make  restitution. 
Our  Petition  of  the  Hansards  (p.  76)  in  1389  is  the  earliest  instance  yet  found 
of  a  petition  in  chancery  followed  by  a  decree.  While  the  petition  was 
addressed  to  the  chancellor,  the  decree  was  pronounced  by  the  council,  and 
then  the  chancellor  made  execution  of  the  order.'  This  answers  a  question 
once  propounded  by  Mr.  Pike.  In  view  of  the  lack  of  records  of  decrees  in 
chancery,  did  not  the  chancellors  at  first  treat  such  bills  under  the  forms  of 
common  law  ?  -  No;  the  evidence  is  that  the  earliest  bills  in  chancery 
were  adjudicated  by  the  council.  Decrees  by  the  chancellor  came  much 
later. 

Yet  the  Statute  of  Praemunire  mentions  the  council  or  the  chancery  as 
two  alternative  courts.  What  was  the  distinction  ?  From  the  inception  of 
the  court  of  chancery  there  was  one  attribute  that  gave  it  a  mark  of  dis- 
tinction beside  all  other  tribunals.  This  was  the  possibility,  as  we  have 
already  intimated,  of  assembling  the  court  at  any  time.  As  was  suggested 
bj'  a  suitor  in  the  time  of  Richard  II,  since  the  council  in  the  usual  course 
was  not  to  meet  before  Michaelmas,  he  asked  that  the  chancellor  be  com- 
manded to  summon  it  without  delay.  The  council  on  the  other  hand,  while 
not  restricted  to  terms,  was  inclined  in  all  judicial  business  to  observe  the 
terms  and  vacations  set  by  the  regular  courts.  "Out  of  term  time,"  it  was 
enacted,  "  nothing  should  be  sped  in  the  council  but  such  thing  as  for  the 
good  of  the  king  and  the  land  seemeth  necessary  .  .  .  and  may  not  abide 
until  the  term  time."  The  need  of  a  court  out  of  term  time  is  expressed  in 
the  Statute  13  Hen.  IV,  c.  7,  which  committed  the  enforcement  of  the  law 
against  rioters  "  to  the  council,  the  king's  bench,  or  the  chancery  during 
vacation."  In  no  way  did  the  chancellors  more  certainly  succeed  in  making 
their  court  useful  and  popular,  than  by  causing  it  to  be  open  at  all  times  to 
suitors. 

The  student  of  the  chancery  is  apt  to  state  prematurely  the  separate 
formation  of  the  court.  It  was  indeed  distinct  in  all  its  administrative 
features  some  time  before  its  judicial  capacity  was  recognized.  Different 
from  the  king's  bench,  which  separated  from  the  council  along  the  line  of 
the  common  law,  the  chancery  during  its  formative  period  retained  the 
character  of  the  original  court,  it  made  no  departure  of  law,  but  simply  con- 
tinued the  jurisdiction  and  procedure  of  the  council.  Its  only  merit  was  in 
making  these  more  widely  available  and  practicable.  Another  error  or 
failure  of  perspective  lies  in  treating  the  court  of  chancery  as  a  direct 
emanation  of  the  royal  prerogative.  As  a  court  of  equity,  it  was  neces- 
sarily close  to  the  king  and  dispensed  his  prerogative,  but  this  was  after  the 
manner  of  the  council  by  consultation  and  advice.  It  was  in  a  later  stage 
that  the  chancellor  himself  was  deemed  the  keeper  of  the  king's  conscience. 

'  See  also  Rol.  Pari,  iii,  310-313.  in  Essays  in  Anglo-American  Legal  History 

»  Law  Quar.  Rev.  i,  443-454,  reprinted      (1908),  ii,  722-736. 


INTKODUCTION  XXV 

For  another  half -century  then,  in  all  equitable  cases  the  attendance  of  the 
council  was  still  regarded  as  necessary.  Sometimes  there  were  present  the 
same  lords  and  knights  who  were  prominent  in  political  work.'  But  the 
number  gradually  shrinks  to  the  formal  attendance  of  a  few  advisers,  pos- 
sibly only  two  justices,  before  the  semblance  of  a  conciliar  body  disappears 
entirely.  There  is  an  instance  in  1458,  wherein  the  decree  is  set  down  as 
pronounced  "  by  the  chancellor  with  the  advice  of  the  justices  of  either 
bench."  -  After  this  the  position  of  the  chancellor  as  sole  judge  is  rapidly 
reached.  In  8  Edward  IV  he  declares  that  he  holds  two  jurisdictions,  the 
one  of  common  law,  the  other  of  equity;  here  the  chancellor  calls  himself  a 
judge.'  In  14  Edward  IV  there  is  a  clear  example  of  an  equitable  decree 
given  by  the  chancellor  alone,  and  other  instances  soon  follow.*  This  was 
not  the  last  of  councillors  in  attendance  and  there  was  still  an  inclination  in 
this  connexion  to  speak  of  the  court  rather  than  the  chancellor.  But  the 
separate  growth  of  the  chancellor's  equitable  jurisdiction  is  no  longer  to  be 
doubted.  The  nature  of  this  jurisdiction  and  its  derivation  from  the  prac- 
tices of  the  council  will  be  discussed  a  little  later. 

Another  problem  in  the  development  of  the  chancery  is  helped  toward 
solution  b}^  the  records  of  our  cases.  It  has  always  been  a  question  how  far 
the  clerical  estate  of  the  chancellors,  for  with  slight  exception  they  were 
invariably  clergymen,  affected  their  judicial  position.  Also  to  what  extent 
did  they  draw  upon  their  knowledge  of  canon  law  and  the  practices  of 
ecclesiastical  courts  in  creating  the  jurisdiction  of  the  chancery  ?  For  the 
most  part  the  evidence  on  these  material  points  is  extremely  elusive.  But 
there  is  a  suggestive  incident  in  our  memorandum  of  The  Confession  of 
Willia7n  Chamberlain  in  1383  (p.  71),  wherein  it  is  told  how  a  man  who  had 
been  drawn  into  an  attempt  to  forge  a  testament,  feeling  pangs  of  remorse, 
went  to  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  then  chancellor  and  made  to  him  a 
complete  confession.  The  chancellor  laid  it  upon  the  guilty  man  as  a 
penance  to  withdraw  from  his  confederates  and  then  to  go  to  the  church 
where  the  testator  was  buried  and  confess  the  wrong.  This  confession  we 
are  told  he  went  forth  and  made  before  the  whole  parish.  The  records 
rarely  tell  us  as  much,  but  it  is  altogether  likely  that  many  a  case  of  moral 
right  or  wrong  was  settled  in  some  such  way,  without  formal  proceedings, 
by  the  imposition  of  a  penance,  or  even  a  word  of  persuasion  or  reproach. 
The  remaining  question  of  the  influence  of  canonical  law  will  be  touched 
upon  in  the  following  sections  on  jurisdiction  and  procedure. 

1  Baildon,     Select   Case^  in  Chancery  '  Year  Books,  S  Edw.  IV,  p.  6. 
(Selden  Society,  vol.  x),  no.  34.  *  Cal.  Pro.  in  Chancery,  i,  xciv;  also, 

2  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  3  Hen.  VII,  p.  204,  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  8  Hen.  VII,  p.  432. 
also  Baildon,  nos.  143,  147. 


XXVI  CASES  BEFOBE  THE   KING'S  COUNCIL 

5.    JURISDICTION 

It  was  the  peculiar  function  of  the  council  to  deal  with  cases  of  emer- 
gency, especially  those  beyond  the  reach  of  the  conunon  law  or  its  means  of 
enforcement.  These  formed  no  class,  but  a  series  of  kaleidoscopic  variety, 
which  shifted  according  to  the  needs  of  the  particular  time.  Different  from 
any  other  court  there  was  in  the  beginning  no  field  of  jurisdiction  belonging 
peculiarly  to  the  council.  Contrary  to  a  current  impression,  it  did  not 
receive  criminal  in  preference  to  civil  cases.  In  fact  it  gave  attention  to 
anything  that,  because  of  the  incompleteness  of  the  law,  required  in  whole 
or  part  exceptional  treatment. 

To  a  certain  extent  this  jurisdiction  was  defined  by  the  statutes.  But 
out  of  a  feeling  of  jealousy  and  distrust,  parliament  committed  few  sub- 
jects to  the  council,  and  still  fewer  to  it  exclusively  of  other  courts.  The 
fii'st  Statute  of  Praemunire,  27  Edw.  Ill,  c.  1,  declares  that  violaters  of  its 
provisions  are  to  be  brought  before  the  king  and  council,  or  in  the  chancery, 
or  before  the  justices  to  answer.  The  second  Statute  of  Praemunire,  38 
Edw.  Ill,  c.  1,  is  almost  the  only  act  during  the  Middle  Ages  that  leaves 
its  enforcement  to  the  king  and  council,  without  the  alternative  of  any 
other  court.  There  are  lesser  acts,  like  the  Statute  8  Ric.  II,  c.  4,  on  the 
rasing  of  records,  and  12  Ric.  II,  c.  11,  on  scandalous  reports,  which  were  to 
be  enforced  in  the  same  manner,  but  on  the  whole  it  is  surprising  how  little 
was  given  to  the  council  by  statutory  authority.  It  was  more  in  accord 
with  the  spirit  of  parliament  to  pass  restrictive  acts  against  the  council. 
The  Statute  5  Edw.  Ill,  c.  9,  that  no  man  should  be  attached  or  his  posses- 
sions seized  contrary  to  the  Great  Charter  and  the  law  of  the  land,  laid 
down  a  principle  often  reiterated,  but  vague  and  uncertain  in  its  application. 
The  Statute  25  Edw.  Ill  laid  down  that  no  man  should  answer  for  his 
franchises  or  freehold  but  by  course  of  common  law.  The  commons  desired 
to  add  "  and  for  matters  of  life  and  limb,"  but  the  king  consented  to  the 
restriction  only  as  regards  freeholds.  This  was  a  material  limitation,  and, 
as  events  proved,  almost  the  only  one  of  positive  character  that  parliament 
ever  succeeded  in  passing.  It  was  an  act  which  the  council,  instead  of  over- 
riding, was  careful  to  observe,  returning  petitions  to  the  courts  of  common 
law  on  the  ground  that  they  pertained  to  freeholds.'  A  petitioner  once 
sought  redress  in  parliament  on  the  allegation  that  the  council  had  heard  a 
plea  touching  his  freehold,^  but  it  is  doubtful  if  the  law  had  been  actually 
violated.  Certainly  no  jurisdiction  of  the  kind  was  ever  claimed  by  the 
council  or  the  chancery. 

For  the  most  part  the  jurisdiction  of  the  council  was  not  affected  by  the 
statutes,  but  extended  by  the  practice  of  the  court  itself.  In  the  medley  of 
cases  before  us,  first  and  foremost  were  those  taken  up  because  they  affected 

I  Ancient  Petilions,  nos.  12,289,  12,299. 

»  Ibid.  4642,  quoted  in  The  King's  Council,  p.  341. 


INTRODUCTION  XXVll 

the  king's  interest.  Whether  the  king  was  in  any  wise  above  and  beyond 
the  law,'  is  a  juristic  question  that  matters  not  in  this  connexion.  It  was 
at  all  times  an  effective  rule  in  the  courts  of  law  that  anj^hing  touching  the 
king's  person,  his  properties,  or  prerogatives  was  not  to  be  treated  without 
special  consultation;  the  proceedings  would  be  cut  short  with  the  words 
loquendum  est  cum  rege.  Sometimes  for  this  reason  the  judges  in  a  case 
received  a  writ  to  surcease;  or  quite  as  often  they  themselves  refused  to 
continue  until  they  should  have  received  a  writ  to  proceed.  Under  such  a 
constant  check  in  the  proceedings  of  the  courts  of  law  prosecutions  of  the 
king's  officers  were  in  the  ordinary  course  impracticable.  It  was  then  in 
the  nature  of  a  concession  that  the  king  permitted  his  officers  to  be  prose- 
cuted, whether  before  a  special  commission,  such  as  heard  the  state  trials  of 
1290,  or  before  the  council  as  illustrated  in  the  Citizens  of  London  v.  the 
Bishop  of  Bath  (p.  8)  and  Ughtred  v.  Musgrave  (p.  54).  About  half  of  the 
cases  collected  for  the  fourteenth  century  came  before  the  council  on  this 
ground.  These  included  not  only  those  to  which  the  king  himself  was  a 
party,  as  in  Rex  v.  Middleton  (p.  35),  Rex  v.  Rouceby  (p.  37),  etc.  A  private 
party  like  the  defendant  in  Bishop  of  Sabina  v.  Bedewynde  (p.  18)  might 
plead  his  case  solely  in  defence  of  the  king's  right,  and  the  grievance  of  a 
suitor,  as  set  forth  in  Darners  v.  Broket  (p.  97),  might  involve  the  integrity 
of  the  king's  records.  The  long  litigation  initiated  in  Heyron  v.  Proute  (p. 
110)  was  complicated  by  the  question  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  king's  court 
against  any  foreign  court  over  English  subjects.  The  king  enjoyed  an  un- 
limited right  of  reserving  cases  for  the  consideration  of  the  council.  "  For 
certain  causes,"  "  in  order  that  the  king  may  be  better  informed,"  "  be- 
cause the  matter  may  be  better  debated  before  the  council,"  ^  a  writ  to  sur- 
cease might  be  issued  and  the  matter  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the  justices 
for  further  consideration.  The  same  justices  might  then  be  invited  to  aid 
in  the  discussion  within  the  council.  But  from  what  follows  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  king's  interests  were  not  unmixed  with  other  considerations. 

From  early  times  the  council  was  concerned  with  the  problems,  both 
legal  and  diplomatic,  arising  from  the  outer  world  of  maritime  and  mercan- 
tile affairs.  Cases  of  this  kind  were  not  excluded  from  other  courts,  but 
because  of  their  limitations  neither  local  courts  nor  courts  of  common  law 
were  adequate  for  dealing  with  them.  An  alien  had  no  right  to  sue  as  a 
plaintiff  in  the  king's  court,  and  as  a  defendant  he  might  be  difficult  to 
reach  by  any  ordinary  process.  Moreover  conditions  at  sea  were  far  differ- 
ent from  those  contemplated  by  the  law  of  the  land,  while  mercantile 
transactions  were  poorly  protected  by  the  native  law  of  covenant.  But  a 
stronger  reason  for  the  interest  of  the  council  in  these  matters  was  the  fact 
that  the  treatment  of  foreigners  in  England  was  closely  connected  with 
diplomatic  intercourse,  often  treaty  rights,  involving  questions  of  friend- 

»  See  PoUock  and  Maitland,  i,  511  ff.         32  Edw.  Ill,  p.  540;  38  Edw.  Ill,  p.  58; 
2  Cal.  Close  Rolls,  29  Edw.  Ill,  p.  157;      Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  27  Edw.  Ill,  p.  434. 


XXVIU  CASES  BEFORE  THE   KING'S  COUNCIL 

ship  and  alliance  with  foreign  states,  e.  g.  Cosfeld  v.  Levey s  (p.  32),  Rex  v. 
Rouceby  (p.  37),  Lomhards  v.  Mercers  (p.  42),  etc.  So  that  the  king  and 
council  were  never  willing  to  lose  control  over  these  affairs  by  delegating 
them  cntirel}'  to  lesser  courts.  There  was  therefore  coming  to  the  council 
an  unending  stream  of  petitions  complaining  of  seiziu-es  at  sea,  piracies, 
violation  of  treaties,  spoil  of  wreck,  etc.  The  council  indeed  rarely  heard 
the  cases,  but  endorsed  the  petitions,  sometimes  with  a  word  of  instruction, 
referring  the  complaint  either  to  a  court  of  common  law,  or  the  chancery, 
or  creating  a  special  commission  for  its  determination.  One  of  the  earliest 
cases  of  this  kind  was  a  suit  of  certain  merchants  of  Spain  and  Portugal 
heard  in  1293  before  a  committee  appointed  by  the  king  and  council.'  Our 
case  of  Rex  v.  Roiiceby  (p.  37)  was  heard  by  the  council  in  1354,  just  a  few 
years  before  the  beginning  of  the  court  of  admiralt}' . 

The  need  of  a  special  court  to  relieve  the  council  and  the  chancery  of  a 
share  of  this  business  is  sufficientlj'  obvious.  Out  of  a  custom  of  employing 
the  admirals  for  judicial  enquiries,  as  Mr.  Marsden  has  shown,-  from  1357 
on  they  were  granted  extensive  powers  of  jurisdiction,  both  civil  and  crimi- 
nal, in  cases  arising  upon  the  sea.  In  the  rapid  expansion  of  their  authority 
there  is  evidence  of  an  intention  at  the  tune  to  create  a  court  of  strong 
competence,  like  the  court  of  chancery  which  was  being  enlarged  at  the 
same  time.  But  there  were  limitations  upon  the  admirals  and  defects  in 
their  courts  that  made  their  success  in  judicial  functions  far  less  than  that 
of  the  chancellors.  As  a  result  of  complaints  in  parliament  against  their 
usurpations  and  novel  procedure,  the  Statutes  of  Richard  II  and  Hem-y  IV 
limited  the  admirals'  jurisdiction  strictly  to  maritime  cases;  they  were 
given  no  power  over  inland  waters,  in  the  bodies  of  counties  or  within  the 
liberties  of  the  Cinque  Ports.'  Moreover  there  were  grave  abuses  in  the 
courts  of  admiralty  as  customarily  conducted.  There  being  two  or  three 
admirals  at  a  time,  of  the  north,  east,  and  west,  each  of  them  held  his  juris- 
diction separately  from  the  others.  Being  more  concerned  with  their  naval 
duties,  the  admirals  failed  to  give  their  courts  the  prestige  of  their  personal 
attendance,  leaving  the  work  mainly  in  the  hands  of  a  deputy  or  sub- 
admiral.  The  courts  were  moved  from  place  to  place,  to  the  great  incon- 
venience of  suitors.  The  sessions  could  be  held  only  in  ports,  never  in 
inland  towns.  Worse  than  this,  the  admirals  permitted  their  courts  to  be 
obstructed  by  a  dilatory  procedure,  by  which  technical  forms  were  multi- 
plied and  litigation  prolonged  indefinitely.  One  case  arising  in  the  13th 
year  of  Richard  II  was  carried  on  for  more  than  two  years,  in  which  as 
many  as  eleven  sittings  can  be  counted,  at  three  different  places,  listening 
to  bill,  answer,  rephcation,  duplication,  triplication,  quadruplication, 
attestation  of  witnesses,  and  at  the  last  stage  it  was  found  that  the  court 

'  K.  G.  Marsden,  Navy  Kccords  Society,  vol.  xli.x,  pp.  12-18. 
'  Select  Fleas  in  the  Court  of  Admiralty  (Seidell  Society,  vol.  vi). 
•  Statutes  13  Ric.  11,  c.  5;   15  Kic.  II,  c.  3;  2  Hen.  IV,  c.  11. 


INTRODUCTION  XXIX 

must  adjourn  because  the  attestations  were  in  the  hands  of  the  sub-admiral 
who  was  then  in  distant  parts.  At  one  point  of  the  proceedings  the  record 
was  taken  to  the  chancery  on  writ  of  certiorari.  Whether  the  case  ever 
came  to  a  final  judgment  is  not  known.'  Another  case,  begun  about  1389, 
was  carried  through  twenty-nine  sittings,  interrupted  several  times  by 
appeals  to  the  council  on  questions  of  authority,  until  in  1404  the  record 
was  ordered  by  a  certiorari  to  be  sent  to  the  chancery.^  Under  these  condi- 
tions it  is  not  strange  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  admiralty  throughout  the 
fifteenth  century  continued  to  be  contracted  rather  than  expanded,  while 
still  other  courts  were  being  fashioned  for  receiving  a  share  of  the  cases  of 
international  and  commercial  character. 

As  a  result,  the  principal  part  of  this  jurisdiction  remained  just  where  it 
had  been  from  the  beginning,  primarily  in  the  king's  council,  secondarily 
in  the  chancery.  Parties  illegally  sued  in  the  admiral's  court  under  the 
statutes  might  recover  damages,  and  thus  the  way  was  open  for  appeals 
from  the  court  of  admiralty  on  the  ground  that  it  was  acting  in  violation  of 
the  statutes  and  in  excess  of  its  authority,  or  as  it  was  usually  stated  that 
the  judgment  was  "  contrary  to  the  law  and  the  form  of  the  court."  The 
council  listened  to  such  appeals  and  in  various  ways  showed  itself  distrust- 
ful of  the  judicial  capacity  of  the  admirals  or  their  deputies.  It  was  quick 
to  interfere  with  the  admiralty  by  orders  to  stay  proceedings ;  sometimes  it 
dictated  to  the  admirals  leaving  them  little  independence  of  judgment ;  on 
one  occasion  it  summoned  the  admirals  to  answer  for  their  conduct.  A  case 
was  heard  in  1386  wherein  the  admirals  were  made  defendants  of  their 
conduct  in  rendering  a  judgment,  which  was  then  reversed  by  a  decision  of 
the  council.'  Rather  than  run  the  risks  attendant  upon  the  court  of 
admiralty,  suitors  might  better  seek  redress  in  first  instance  from  the  king's 
council.  As  for  foreigners,  the  council  was  their  only  recourse,  until  the 
chancellor  also  was  permitted  to  hear  them.  This  condition  was  far  from 
satisfactory,  for  manifestly  the  council  could  not  hear  many  of  the  cases 
presented  or  even  give  them  passing  attention.  According  to  a  complaint 
of  the  commons  in  1439  it  was  likely  to  err  on  the  side  of  leniency.  At  the 
suit  of  alien  merchants,  it  was  said,  made  before  the  king  and  council, 
sometimes  before  the  chancellor,  ships  captured  from  the  enemy  were  re- 
leased and  damages  paid,  to  the  injury  of  native  shippers.  It  was  therefore 
enacted  that  henceforth  ships  should  not  be  released  except  by  letters  patent 
enrolled  in  the  chancery.''  In  the  treatment  of  these  cases,  the  council 
might  refer  the  matter  to  any  of  the  courts  mentioned,  but  the  usual 
method,  illustrated  in  Wythimi  v.  Men  of  Kampen  (p.  95)  and  Duval  v. 
Arundel  (p.  96),  was  the  primitive  one  of  creating  a  commission  of  oyer  and 
terminer.     Sometimes  the  commissions  were  given  instructions  by  the 

'  Sekct  Pleas  in  the  Court  of  Admirally,  '  Given  in  The  King's  Council,  p.  507. 

no.  1.  *  Rot.  Pari.  V,  27. 

"  Ibid.  no.  2. 


XXX  CASES  BEFORE  THE   KING'S  COUNCIL 

council,  and  sometimes  they  were  asked  to  make  report  of  their  findings. 
Often  the  parties  were  brought  before  the  council  and  a  discussion  was  held 
before  the  matter  was  given  to  the  commission.  If  properly  composed  the 
commissions  were  not  unserviceable.  In  1429  the  commons  especially 
requested  that  the  justices  of  the  peace  might  be  granted  commissions  of 
oyer  and  tenniner  to  deal  with  certain  rovers  who  were  committing  depre- 
dations on  the  sea.'  In  Duval  v.  Arundel  the  petitioners  name  the  men 
whom  they  wish  to  be  appointed  as  commissioners.  The  obvious  deficiency 
of  the  commissions,  generally  disregarded  at  the  time,  was  the  lack  of  a 
coherent  system  of  justice.  Each  case  was  treated  by  itself  with  a  mini- 
mum of  regard  for  precedent.  Records  of  their  proceedings  were  generally 
lacking,  so  that  it  was  once  suggested  that  commissioners  who  failed  to 
deliver  their  processes  and  pleas  into  the  exchequer  should  be  punished. 
Even  so,  the  commissions  could  never  be  a  substitute  for  a  court  of  strong 
competence  and  specialized  function.  This  began  to  be  appreciated  by 
Henry  VII  who  extended  the  powers  of  the  admirals  materially,  and  by 
Henrj'  VIII  who  placed  the  court  of  admiralty  upon  substantial  statutory 
foundation. 

As  the  antecedent  of  the  modern  court  of  star  chamber,  the  council  has 
generally  been  represented  as  a  court  of  summary  jurisdiction  in  criminal 
cases.  Contrary  to  a  prevailing  belief  this  was  not  its  original  function, 
but  one  that  developed  in  time  from  force  of  necessity.  There  were  alwaj^s 
the  crimes  of  great  violence  and  oppression,  named  as  riots,  routs,  con- 
federacies, conspiracies,  unlawful  assemblages,  forcible  entries,  mainte- 
nance of  quarrels,  etc.  These  were  most  dangerous  when  perpetrated  by 
bands  of  armed  men,  often  under  the  leadership  of  the  most  prominent 
knights  in  the  counties,  who  might  themselves  be  sheriffs,  custodians  of 
castles,  justices  of  the  peace,  or  in  collusion  with  them.  They  intimidated 
courts,  prevented  the  execution  of  writs,  corrupted  juries,  held  suitors  in 
durance,  and  promoted  litigation  in  the  interests  of  their  retainers.  Some- 
times we  uncover  a  systematic  endeavour  on  the  part  of  a  few  strong  men 
in  a  countj^  by  force  and  fraud  to  dispossess  their  weaker  neighbours.  But 
during  the  thirteenth,  and  most  of  the  fourteenth  century,  the  council  was 
concerned  not  with  the  trial  of  such  cases,  so  much  as  with  the  elaboration 
of  legal  ways  and  means  for  dealing  with  them.  For  this  i)urpose  the  writ 
of  trespass  and  several  related  writs,  the  court  of  king's  bench,  the  keepers 
of  the  peace,  and  later  the  justices  of  the  peace  were  each  in  turn  cstal)lished. 
Rather  than  hear  a  case  of  extraordinary  atrocity  the  council  would  refer  it 
to  a  commission  of  oyer  and  terminer,  as  in  Burton-on-Trenl  v.  Meynell 
(p.  41).  In  the  present  collection  it  is  noticeable  that  no  case  of  violence  is 
heard  at  length  by  the  council,  distinctly  on  this  ground,  prior  to  the  reign 
of  Richard  II.  In  Parson  of  hangar  v.  Conyngshij  (p.  47)  the  parties  were 
brought  to  an  accord.  In  Ughtred  v.  Musgrave  (p.  54)  violence  was  involved, 

'  Hot.  Pari,  iv,  351,  377. 


INTRODUCTION  XXXI 

but  the  case  was  heard  because  the  defendant  was  a  sheriff.  The  first  case 
of  maintenance  in  fact  to  be  given  a  complete  hearing  was  Esturmy  v. 
Courtenay  (p.  77),  and  from  that  time  others  follow  in  rapid  succession. 

That  the  council  should  exercise  any  jurisdiction  of  the  kind  was  reluc- 
tantly admitted  in  the  statutes.  The  numerous  statutes  against  mainte- 
nance and  liveries,  20  Edw.  Ill,  13  Ric.  II,  IG  Ric.  II,  7  Hen.  IV,  etc.,  rely 
not  upon  the  council  but  upon  justices  of  assize  and  justices  of  the  peace 
for  their  enforcement.  The  Statute  13  Hen.  IV,  c.  7,  against  riots  seems  to 
strike  a  new  note  in  declaring  that  in  default  of  the  justices  of  the  peace 
certification  shall  be  made  to  the  king  and  council,  and  punishment  of  the 
rioters  shall  be  inflicted  at  their  discretion.  The  act  further  provides  that 
if  the  trespassers  do  not  appear  at  the  first  precept,  another  precept  shall 
be  issued  to  the  sheriff  to  bring  them  before  the  council  or  the  king's  bench; 
and  if  this  means  fail,  then  proclamation  is  to  be  made  for  the  transgressors 
to  appear  before  the  king  and  council,  the  king's  bench,  or  the  chancery. 
But  whatever  authoritj'  was  given  to  the  council  by  this  act  was  taken  away 
b}'  the  Statute  2  Hen.  V,  1st,  c.  8,  which  reverted  to  former  methods  in 
placing  the  enforcement  of  the  law  preferably  in  the  hands  of  special  com- 
missions. Again  the  Statute  8  Edw.  IV,  c.  2,  the  most  vigorous  act  yet 
passed  against  liveries,  specifies  the  king's  bench,  the  court  of  common 
pleas,  the  justices  of  the  peace,  and  commissioners  of  oyer  and  terminer;  it 
goes  far  to  legitimatize  in  the  courts  extraordinary  procedure  by  bill,  in- 
formation and  examination,  but  it  carefully  avoids  designating  the  council. 
Only  in  vague  language  did  parliament  recognize  the  authority  of  the 
council  in  this  class  of  cases,  as  in  the  proviso  to  an  act  of  1  Ric.  II,  "unless 
it  be  against  such  high  personages  that  right  cannot  be  done  elsewhere  "; ' 
and  again,  "  unless  there  be  too  much  might  on  the  one  side  and  urunight 
on  the  other."  Moreover  a  survey  of  the  petitions  shews  that  the  council 
was  not  popularly  regarded  as  the  only  court  for  such  suits.  Quite  as  many 
petitions  of  this  kind  were  addressed  to  parliament  on  this  score;  and  the 
earliest  petitions  in  chancery  were  of  the  same  character.  But  parliament, 
which  was  reluctant  to  pass  any  general  act  to  this  effect,  persistently 
referred  indi\ddual  cases  to  the  council,  e.  g.  Atte  Wode  v.  Clifford  (p.  86). 
At  the  close  of  the  first  parliament  of  Henry  VI  an  entire  file  of  "riot  bills " 
was  thus  turned  over.  It  was  therefore  by  custom  and  general  acquiescence 
that  this  part  of  the  council's  jurisdiction  was  established  before  the 
Statute  3  Hen.  VII  expressly  mentions  "  maintenance,  liveries,  signs  and 
tokens,  retainers,  riots  and  unlawful  assemblages  "  as  pertaining  to  the 
council  sitting  in  the  star  chamber. 

There  is  a  remaining  question,  how  far  the  council  shared  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  equitable  jurisdiction  that  flourished  most  widely  under  the 
chancellors  in  the  fifteenth  century.  There  is  no  longer  any  contention  that 
equity  originated  with  the  chancellors  or  with  any  particular  court.    It  is 

>  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  40. 


XXXn  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

known  indeed  to  have  existed  in  the  curia  regis  of  the  thirteenth  century, 
and  was  afterwards  operative  in  the  various  courts  of  common  law,  in- 
cluding those  of  the  itinerant  justices.^  From  the  beginning  the  council 
was  broadh'  a  court  of  equity,  in  that  its  action  was  a  dispensation  of  the 
royal  prerogative;  it  received  cases  on  petition,  it  showed  mercy  and  leni- 
ency in  the  application  of  the  law,  it  admitted  suitors  legally  disabled,  it 
required  specific  performance  in  the  restitution  of  goods  and  chattels.^ 
There  is  a  difference  of  opinion,  however,  whether  the  later  equity,  as 
developed  by  the  chancellors,  was  a  continuation  of  the  earlier  equity 
administered  by  the  common-law  courts,  or  whether  we  should  regard  the 
chancellors'  equity  as  "  a  new,  a  distinct,  and  an  independent  develop- 
ment." ^  Dr.  Holdsworth  places  the  two  phases  in  contrast  to  one  another, 
while  Professor  Adams  argues  for  the  essential  continuity  of  the  principles 
of  equity  in  the  curia  regis,  through  the  courts  of  common  law  and  into  the 
court  of  chancery.*  It  remains  to  shew  how  far  the  council  gave  expression 
to  the  equitable  principle,  and  what  precedents  it  laid  down  for  the  com-t  of 
chancery.  In  this  enquiry  special  attention  must  be  given  to  the  cases  of 
verbal  agreements,  trusts  and  uses,  which,  says  Justice  Holmes,  were  "  the 
greatest  contribution  to  the  substantive  law  ever  set  down  to  the  credit  of 
the  chancery."  One  of  the  most  notable  cases  antedating  the  court  of 
chancery  in  its  equitable  functions  was  that  of  Audeley  v.  Audeleij  heard  in 
1366.*  In  this  instance  a  married  woman  without  the  concm-rcnce  of  her 
husband,  a  Jevime  sole  having  no  standing  at  common  law,  was  heard  by 
the  council  in  a  suit  against  her  father-in-law  for  the  performance  of  a  pre- 
marital contract.  After  a  sharp  contest,  interesting  in  several  points  of 
procedure,  there  was  an  award  requiring  specific  perfonnance  of  the  terms 
of  the  covenants  under  pain  of  £6000.  In  the  Fraunceys  case  heard  in  1392 
certain  parties,  who  proved  to  be  dishonest  executors,  were  examined  before 
the  council  as  to  the  existence  of  an  obligation  not  produced  in  court.'  Of 
trusteeship  in  goods  and  chattels  there  is  the  example  of  Hogonona  v.  A  Friar 
Austin  (p.  85)  in  1401,  wherein  the  petitioner  alleges  the  loss  of  money  and 
a  breviary  left  in  trust,  and  asks  for  a  hearing  before  the  council.  But  the 
council,  as  it  appears,  merely  ordered  his  release  from  captivity  without 
affording  any  further  relief.  In  1422  there  was  the  full  hearing  of  a  case, 
Langeford  v.  Prior  of  Gidjurn,^  in  which  the  petitioner  seeks  the  return  of 
certain  jewels  and  other  goods  which  the  prior  refuses  to  surrender.    On 

'  See  H.  D.  HazcUine,  Early  History  of  of  Equity  administered  by  the  Common  Law 

English  Equity  (Essays  in  Legal  History  Judges  to  the  Equity  administered  by  the 

read  before  the  Congress  of  1913).  Chancellors  (Yale  Law  Journal,  xxvi,  1- 

'  This  reputation  of  the  court  is  re-  23). 
fleeted  in  the  Statute  5  Rie.  II,  1,  e.  8,  «  G.    B.    Adams,    The    Continuity    of 

that  those  who  lost  their  deeds  in  the  late  English  Equity  (ibid,  xxvii,  550-503);  also 

troubles  were  to  present  petitions  to  the  Columbia  Law  Review,  xvi,  98. 
king  and  council,  when  such  remedy  was  '  Cal.  Close  Rolls,  40  Va\w.  Ill,  237-239. 

to  be  provided  as  was  just.  '  The  King's  Council,  p.  517. 

•  See  W.  S.  Holdsworth,  The  Relation  '  Nicolas,  iii,  328-331. 


INTRODUCTION  XXXUl 

the  evidence  of  an  indenture  specifying  the  chattels  loaned,  the  council 
decreed  full  restitution.  The  earliest  cases  of  enfeoffments  to  use,  the  most 
significant  departure  in  the  history  of  equity,  are  extremely  elusive  because 
of  gaps  in  the  records.  The  earliest  treatment  of  such  a  case  is  revealed  to 
us  by  an  appeal  in  parliament  occurring  in  1380.'  Certain  feoffees,  having 
been  impleaded  in  the  chancerj^,  were  there  examined,  it  is  said,  before  the 
chancellor,  lords  and  others  of  the  king's  council,  as  to  whether  the  feoff- 
ment had  been  simple  or  with  conditions.  The  final  decree  was  made  by 
the  king  and  put  into  execution  by  the  chancellor.  It  is  of  some  signifi- 
cance that  at  this  time  petitions  upon  the  subject  began  to  be  addressed  to 
the  chancellor.^  But  the  petitioners  seem  still  to  have  regarded  the  matter 
as  under  the  jurisdiction  of  parliament  or  the  council.  This  was  the  \'iew 
taken  certainly  by  one  petitioner,  who  in  the  time  of  Henry  IV  besought 
the  chancellor  to  command  a  trustee  to  come  before  the  council,  there  to  be 
examined,  and  to  do  further  what  the  council  should  award.'  The  first 
time  that  the  subject  of  feoffment  to  use  was  mentioned  in  these  words  was 
in  1402,  when  the  commons  apparentlj^  desired  an  act  of  legislation  against 
disloyal  feoffees,  because  they  said  "  in  such  cases  there  is  no  remedj^  unless 
one  be  provided  in  parliament."  ■*  The  matter  was  referred  to  the  council, 
but  whatever  action  may  have  been  taken  further  we  do  not  know.  In  the 
same  year  there  was  a  case  before  the  council,  Gunwardby  and  others  v. 
Tiptoft  and  others,^  in  which  the  feoffees  and  the  beneficiary  were  plaintiffs. 
As  the  defendants  failed  to  appear,  there  were  several  postponements,  and 
all  that  we  learn  is  an  intimation  that  the  parties  were  willing  to  treat  out 
of  court.  Amid  the  general  dearth  of  records  it  is  a  natural  supposition  that 
most  cases  of  the  kind  were  disposed  of  in  this  manner.  In  142.3  there  is 
the  minute  of  an  examination  before  the  council  of  the  feoffees  of  Lady 
Neville,  who  acknowledged  that  they  had  been  enfeoffed  of  certain  manors 
for  the  purpose  of  paying  the  deceased  lady's  debts  and  for  making  a  re- 
enfeoffment  to  her  son  and  heir.*  Since  these  cases  all  antedate  anj'^  known 
proceedings  of  the  kind  in  the  separate  court  of  chancery,  they  seem  to 
warrant  the  inference  that  like  other  matters  of  equitable  jurisdiction  they 
originated  in  the  council,  whence  the  chancellors  derived  their  special 
authority  and  inspiration.  Fiu-ther  the  extreme  rarity  of  the  cases  and 
their  usual  failure  to  reach  a  conclusion  suggest  that  the  council,  controlled 
as  it  was  by  conservative  influences,  did  not  welcome  these  suits  or  give 
them  due  attention.  The  chancellors,  on  the  other  hand,  as  soon  as  their 
authority  was  sufficient,  received  them  gladly  and  professed  their  readiness 
to  afford  a  remedy  for  every  grievance.  While  the  great  bulk  of  equitable 
suits  was  then  swept  into  the  chancery,  the  council  by  no  means  relin- 

•  Rol.  Pari,  iii,  79.  *  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  511. 

*  Baildon,    Select    Cases   in   Chancery,  '  The  King's  Council,  p.  522. 
nos.  40,  45,  71.                                                          "  Nicolas,  iii,  20. 

'  Ibid.  99,  102. 


XXXIV  CASES  BEFORE  THE   KING'S  COUNCIL 

quished  its  claim  upon  them.  Cases  like  Fouquire  v.  Nicole  (p.  118)  and 
Norto7i  V.  Cohjngborne  (p.  115)  still  appear,  but  in  the  course  of  events  the 
two  courts  were  divergent  in  spirit.  By  reason  of  inherent  character  the 
council  was  becoming  the  great  criminal  tribunal,  while  the  chancery  by 
the  enterprise  of  its  head  and  members  was  finding  its  greatest  usefulness 
as  a  court  of  equity. 

Finally,  the  council  assumed  the  power  on  occasion  to  deal  with  heretics, 
necromancers,  soothsayers,  witches,  etc.  There  are  not  many  cases  of  this 
kind,  but  they  are  of  interest  as  precedents  for  the  greater  activities  of  the 
modern  court  against  freedom  of  thought;  also  as  showing  a  possible  con- 
nexion of  the  methods  of  the  council  with  the  heresy  trials  of  the  church. 
An  instance,  cited  by  the  Ecclesiastical  Courts  Conamission  (1883)  as  taking 
place  before  the  king's  council,  is  the  examination  of  William  Buxton, 
accused  of  being  a  schismatic,  in  1384.'  The  memorandum,  however,  gives 
evidence  of  being  not  a  record  of  the  council  but  a  distinctly  ecclesiastical 
document.  Moreover  the  proceedings  were  conducted  not  before  the 
council,  but  before  the  king  and  a  special  assemblage,  predominantly  lay- 
men, in  time  of  parliament.  Chancellor  Pole  was  present  and  took  part  in 
the  disputation.  The  event  only  proves  that  the  king's  councillors  came  in 
contact  with  heresy  trials.  In  1388  Richard  II,  then  under  the  domination 
of  the  Lords  Appellant,  appointed  a  commission  to  search  for,  take  and 
bring  before  the  council  all  the  heretical  books  being  put  forth  by  disciples 
of  Wiclif,  and  to  an-est  all  persons  buying  and  selling  the  same.^  Again  in 
1392  at  the  request  of  the  bishop  of  Hereford,  who  confessed  his  inability  to 
arrest  two  men  in  his  diocese  said  to  be  heretics,  the  king  granted  the 
bishop  authority  with  the  aid  of  the  sheriffs  to  arrest  the  men,  wherever 
they  might  be  found,  and  bring  them  before  the  council.'  Whatever  may 
have  been  done  by  the  council  in  these  cases,  we  do  not  know.  But  in  1401 
there  is  the  clear  instance  of  a  soothsayer,  John  Kyme,  who  was  brought 
before  the  council  where  he  was  examined  and  finally  made  to  swear  that 
he  would  never  henceforth  believe  in  false  prophesies,  or  meddle  with  them, 
or  speak  privately  or  openly  against  the  state  of  the  king.''  A  few  further 
cases  of  the  kind,  which  were  brought  up  from  time  to  time,  give  the  im- 
pression that  the  council  was  little  disposed  to  attack  heresy,  unless  it 
might  be  connected  with  political  interests  or  breaches  of  the  peace.  Once 
it  exhorted  the  bishop  of  Lincoln  to  act  against  persons  accused  of  magic, 
sorcery,  and  necromancy.'  Again,  it  made  an  examination  of  certain  per- 
sons thus  accused.'  In  1441  one  Roger  Bolingbroke,  a  clerk  implicated  with 
the  duchess  of  Gloucester  in  the  attempt  by  magic  to  shorten  the  king's 
life,  was  examined  before  the  council  and  made  to  confess  that  he  had 

'  Wilkins,  Concilia,  iii,  191.  *  Palgrave,  Original  Authority,  p.  87. 

2  Cal.  Pal.  Rolls,  430.  •  Nicolas,  i,  288. 

>  Ibid.  40.  '  Ibid,  iv,  107;  also  114;  vi,  40,  45. 


INTRODUCTION  XXXV 

wrought  the  necromancy.'  In  the  same  year  the  Witch  of  Eye,  who  was 
involved  in  the  same  affair,  was  tried  by  a  special  commission,  before  whom 
the  clerk  of  the  council  read  the  articles  of  examination,  some  of  which  the 
defendant  denied  and  others  admitted.^  The  special  significance  of  these 
cases  will  be  seen  in  connexion  with  the  interrogatory  examinations  to  be 
treated  in  the  following  section. 

6.    PROCEDURE 

It  was  in  methods  of  procedure  more  than  in  substantive  jurisdiction 
that  the  council  and  the  chancery  were  distinguished  from  the  courts  of 
common  law.  It  is  generally  understood  that  the  original  influence  in  this 
direction  came  from  the  civil  law  through  the  practices  of  the  ecclesiastical 
courts,  though  the  extent  of  Romanist  influence  has  been  a  matter  of  dis- 
pute. The  very  names  "  petition,"  "  exception,"  "  examination,"  "  inter- 
rogation," "  replication,"  "  confession,"  "  decree  "  are  taken  from  the 
Roman  vocabulary;  at  the  same  time  it  is  significant  that  other  terms  of 
ecclesiastical  law  like  "  citation,"  "  libel,"  "  caution,"  "  interdict,"  "  de- 
nunciation," "  deposition,"  "  position,"  have  been  avoided  in  secular 
practice.  Moreover  the  question  of  Roman  origins  is  complicated  by  the 
fact  that  some  of  the  methods  of  the  equitable  courts  came  by  way  of  the 
common  law.  There  was  certainly  no  slavish  imitation  of  the  clerical 
system,  but  an  adoption  and  adaptation  of  certain  features  that  were  found 
useful.  A  better  analysis  of  the  factors  involved  may  be  expected  when  a 
further  publication  of  ecclesiastical  cases  shall  have  been  made. 

As  has  been  said  before,  the  first  step  to  bring  a  suit  or  complaint  before 
the  council  was  a  petition;  a  bill  as  it  was  commonly  called  in  litigation. 
Compared  with  a  writ  of  common  law,  a  bill  was  the  distinguishing  feature 
of  all  equitable  procedure,  which  existed  to  a  degree  in  the  exchequer  and 
before  the  justices  in  eyre,  as  well  as  in  the  council,  the  chancery,  and  the 
admiralty.  The  original  idea,  and  possibly  the  word,'  may  have  come  from 
the  petition  or  supplicatory  libel  of  the  clerical  courts,  but  there  is  no  fur- 
ther likeness  in  form  or  character.  The  earliest  of  our  secular  petitions  in 
fact  are  hardly  different  from  letters  and  were  probably  composed  by  letter- 
writers.  They  came  to  be  much  more  elaborate,  but  always  retained  a 
greater  lack  of  formality  than  was  permitted  to  other  legal  documents. 
Customarily  the  petition  consisted  of  the  address,  the  grievance,  and  the 
prayer.  The  address  was  to  the  king,  the  king  and  council,  the  king  or  lords 
in  parliament,  the  council,  or  the  chancellor,  with  other  variations.  There 
was  no  requirement  that  the  petitioner  should  name  the  court  for  his  suit; 
this  might  be  determined  later.  There  were  in  time  many  expressions  to 
dignify  the  address,  such  as  "  good,"  "  wise,"  "  gracious,"  "  honourable," 

'  Chronicle  of  London  (ed.  Nicolas,  1827),  p.  128. 

'  English  Chronicle  (Camden  Society,  1856),  p.  58. 

»  W.  C.  Bolland,  Select  Bills  in  Eyre  (Selden  Society,  vol.  30),  p.  xi. 


xxx^a  CASES  before  the  king's  council 

"  redoubtable  ";  the  address  too  was  likely  to  be  set  off  in  the  margin  and 
ornamented  with  flourishes  of  the  pen,  but  these  were  mere  embellishments 
for  the  purpose  of  inducing  attention.  The  grievance  was  stated  usually 
with  bre\-ity,  the  only  elaboration  being  the  horrible  nature  of  the  oifence 
and  the  hardship  endured,  possibly  to  the  extent  of  exaggeration.  In  this 
point  petitions  were  apt  to  fail  in  giving  essential  particulars  of  time  and 
place.  One  advantage  that  a  petition  had  over  the  instruments  of  common 
law  was  that  it  might  complain  of  "  certain  persons  "  or  "  parties  un- 
known." Even  a  mistake  in  a  name  did  not  invalidate  it,  e.  g.  Norton  v. 
Colyngborne  (p.  115).  In  Poche  v.  Idle  (p.  116)  a  space  has  been  left  for  the 
name  afterwards  to  be  filled  in.  As  the  chancellor  once  remarked,  "  in  this 
court  it  is  not  requisite  that  the  bill  should  be  in  every  point  certain  {loiU 
en  certein)  after  the  solemnity  of  common  law,  for  here  there  is  only  peti- 
tion." Finally,  the  prayer  was  for  remedy;  it  need  not  specify  what 
remedy,  which  in  fact  was  usually  left  to  the  court.  It  concluded  with  a 
pious  exhortation,  "  for  God,"  "  for  the  love  of  God  and  in  the  way  of 
charity,"  "  we  shall  pray  for  you,"  "  for  the  sake  of  the  Queen,"  etc. 
Ordinarily  the  petition  was  prepared  in  advance,  but  sometimes  the  com- 
plainant appeared  in  court  without  any  petition.  Once  after  proceedings 
had  begun,  a  complainant  was  requested  to  put  her  grievances  in  writing.' 
In  some  petitions  there  is  internal  evidence  that  they  were  actually  prepared 
in  court.  A  late  requirement  was  that  petitions  should  be  duplicated  one 
copy  being  for  the  use  of  the  defendant.^  In  Atte  Wode  v.  Clifford  (p.  88,  n.) 
we  are  told  that  one  copy  was  left  for  a  record  with  the  clerk  of  parliament, 
while  the  other  was  given  to  the  clerk  of  the  privy  seal.  Again  in  contrast 
to  a  writ,  petitions  cost  nothing  to  present,  and  it  was  sometimes  urged  as 
an  argument  against  this  procedure  that  it  brought  in  no  revenue.'  It  was 
not  essential  for  a  petitioner  to  appear  in  person ;  he  might  be  prevented  by 
poverty  (e.  g.  p.  120).  At  the  same  time  there  was  no  obligation  upon  the 
court  to  hear  a  petition,  so  that  suitors  lost  time  and  money  due  to  the 
delay.  Finally  a  written  petition  was  never  a  positive  requirement.  In 
several  of  the  cases,  such  as  Eslurimj  v.  Courlenay  (p.  77)  and  Danvers  v. 
Broket  (p.  97),  a  complainant  was  permitted  to  make  his  charges  orally 
before  the  council,  and  if  the  facts  were  thus  clearly  presented,  it  sufficed. 
Further,  the  council  took  up  criminal  cases  on  "  information  "  or  "  sug- 
gestion," by  whomsoever  it  was  offered.  This  was  a  mode  of  accusation 
that  was  creeping  in  as  the  earlier  method  of  criminal  appeal  declined.''  It 
differed  from  the  appeal,  in  that  it  was  unaccompanied  by  any  challenge  to 
battle;  it  might  be  offered  either  publicly  or  secretly,  and  was  without 
traditional  safeguards.  There  are  instances  in  the  time  of  Edward  I,  in 
which  men  were  put  to  trial,  without  indictment,  on  criminal  information, 

'  Nicolas,    ii,    287;     also    Tlie    King's  '  Rol.  Pari,  iv,  84. 

Council,  p.  511.  *  On   appeals   of   crime   see   Stephen, 

»  Nicolas,  ii,  289;  v,  291.  Hist,  of  Criminal  Law  (1883),  i,  244-250. 


INTRODUCTION  XXXVll 

but  they  were  then  reputed  to  be  rare.'  Irregular  as  it  was,  the  thing  was 
done  in  parHament,  in  the  king's  bench,  and  before  the  justices  in  eyre. 
The  king's  council  took  up  the  practice  and  carried  it  to  such  a  point  that 
in  the  reign  of  Edward  III  there  began  to  be  heard  protests.  The  statute 
of  the  fifth  j'ear,  that  no  man  should  be  attached  by  any  accusation  against 
the  Great  Charter  or  the  law  of  the  land,  probably  had  reference  to  just 
this  practice.  The  statute  of  the  twenty-fifth  year  (5,  c.  4)  expressly 
enacted  that  none  should  be  taken  by  petition  or  suggestion  before  the  king 
or  the  council,  unless  by  indictment  or  presentation.  This  act,  if  it  had 
been  carried  into  effect,  would  have  precluded  one  of  the  most  characteristic 
processes  of  the  council.  No  doubt  there  was  need  of  a  system  of  accusa- 
tion apart  from  the  jury  in  favour  of  individuals.  It  is  on  record  how  a 
certain  party,  not  daring  to  make  his  accusation  openly,  went  to  a  father 
confessor  and  revealed  the  fraud  that  was  being  perpetrated  upon  his 
mother's  will,  in  the  hope  that  the  matter  would  thus  be  made  known  to 
the  king's  council.-  But  as  is  frequently  disclosed  the  danger  of  the  system 
lay  in  its  being  applied  on  the  slightest  suspicion  and  even  falsely  and  mali- 
ciously. In  the  twenty-eighth  year  there  was  an  outcry  that  the  king's 
purveyors,  because  legal  proceedings  had  been  taken  against  them,  were 
making  false  suggestions  in  order  to  bring  their  opponents  before  the  king 
and  council.'  The  Statute  27  Edw.  Ill,  several  times  reenacted,  required 
accusers  to  offer  security  to  prove  their  suggestions  before  the  council  as 
well  as  in  other  courts.  Parties  gave  assurances  in  various  ways,  offering 
to  prove  their  assertions,  swearing  to  their  truth,  and  promising  to  give 
satisfaction  if  their  complaints  should  not  prove  to  be  true.  In  one  case  an 
accuser  declared  himself  ready  to  prove  all  things  contained  in  his  bill  on 
pain  of  loss  of  Ufe  and  chattels.^  By  act  of  parliament  in  1394  the  chancel- 
lor was  given  power  to  require  the  parties  suing  for  writs  of  summons  and 
arrest  to  find  sufficient  pledges  and  surety  for  the  truth  of  their  sugges- 
tions.* Thus  there  arose  the  practice,  adopted  in  the  chancery  and  also  in 
the  council,  of  requiring  the  names  of  persons  giving  surety,  the  plegii  de 
prosequendo  as  they  were  called,  to  be  written  in  the  margin  of  the  bill.  An 
example  of  this  device  is  given  in  Norton  v.  Colyngborne  (p.  115).  Since 
security  of  this  kind  was  not  always  required  by  the  council,  the  fear  of 
malicious  accusations  was  hardly  diminished.  There  was  an  inclination 
also  on  the  part  of  defendants  to  offer  surety.  Once  the  parties  against 
whom  information  had  been  laid  offered  their  bodies  for  due  punishment, 
in  case  the  charges  were  found  to  be  true.* 

Encouraged  by  the  council,  the  practice  of  seeking  information  became 
a  wide-spread  system  of  public  espionage.    One  of  the  writs  in  use  cited 

»  Pollock  and   Maitland,  ii,   662;    for  '  Rol.   Pari,   ii,   260;    also   Col.   Close 

examples    see     Oxford     City    Documents  Rolls,  28  Edw.  Ill,  p.  72. 
(Oxford  Hist.  Soc),  p.  204;   Rot.  Pari,  i,  *  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  38  Edw.  Ill,  p.  502. 

172;  Mem.  de  Pari.  255,  etc.  »  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  323. 

»  The  King's  Council,  p.  518.  »  Nicolas,  v,  166. 


XXXVlll  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

persons  "  to  give  information  and  to  do  and  receive  whatever  shall  be 
required  by  the  council."  In  the  reign  of  Richard  II  a  reward  was  offered 
to  those  reporting  evasion  of  the  customs,  and  again  announcement  was 
made  that  informers  would  be  heard.  In  the  reign  of  Henry  IV  there  is 
extant  a  lengthj^  deposition  of  one  William  Stokes,  who  sets  forth  how 
it  is  the  duty  of  everj^  loyal  subject  to  safeguard  the  honour  and  profit  of 
the  crown,  and  informs  the  council  of  certain  illegal  exportations  of  wool.' 
Sometimes  the  information  was  presented  in  a  petition,  suggesting  the  arrest 
of  this  or  that  part}',  in  one  instance  pointing  out  a  spy.-  In  1420  there  is 
a  letter  of  Thomas  Erpingham,  himself  a  member  of  the  council,  acquaint- 
ing the  chancellor  of  the  probability  of  a  riot  in  Suffolk.'  Parliament  was 
with  good  reason  suspicious  of  informers  and  was  as  a  rule  averse  to  the 
sj-stem  of  trial  without  indictment,  but  there  were  times,  nevertheless,  when 
it  sanctioned  the  practice.  In  1423  the  commons  expressed  their  willingness 
that  in  cases  of  persons  carrying  gold  out  of  the  country',  any  one  giving 
notice  of  the  fact  to  the  council  or  the  treasurer  should  receive  half  of  the 
goods  forfeited,  but  the  king  consented  to  his  receiving  only  a  fourth  part.* 
Again  the  Statute  of  Liveries,  8  Edw.  IV,  c.  2,  declared  that  every  informer 
should  be  admitted  in  the  courts  to  sue  for  the  king  and  himself,  being 
required  only  to  swear  on  a  book  to  the  truth  of  his  assertions,  and  such 
information  should  stand  instead  of  bill  or  original  writ.  Finally  the  Statute 
of  the  Star  Chamber,  3  Hen.  VII,  warranted  the  procedure  of  the  council 
"  upon  bill  or  information." 

Next  in  order  were  the  writs  of  summons  and  arrest,  by  which  parties 
could  be  cited,  and,  if  need  be,  compelled  to  appear  before  the  court.  It  is 
well  known  that  in  the  reign  of  Edward  III  there  were  devised  in  the  chan- 
cery certain  summary  writs,  the  quibusdam  cerlis  de  causis,  the  proemunire, 
and  the  subpoena.  The  first  appears  as  early  as  1346,  the  latter  in  1363. 
These  differed  from  any  corresponding  instruments  of  the  common  law  in 
their  initial  clause,  failing  to  give  cause  of  the  suit  or  prosecution,'  and  in 
the  method  of  their  issue  without  registry  or  enrolment.  From  what  is 
now  known,  these  writs  were  not  derived  from  any  example  set  bj'  the 
ecclesiastical  courts,  but  were  evolved  out  of  the  formulae  already  in  use 
for  administrative  rather  than  judicial  purposes.  The  significant  clause 
quibusdam  certis  de  causis  commonly  appears  in  such  writs  and  precepts  as 
the  certiorari  and  supersedeas  from  the  time  of  Edward  I.  Likewise  the 
final  penal  clause  was  new  only  in  its  particular  application.*    The  first  use 

'  The  King's  Council,  p.  523.  land."      Year  Books   (Selden  Society),  5 

2  Ancient  PetUions,  14,948,  15,198.  Edw.  II,  p.  44. 

'  Nicol.'w,  ii,  272.  «  See  the  writ  to  the  sheriff  of  Essex  in 

*  Hot.  Part,  iv,  252;  ugain  vi,  184.  12,32,    to   arrest    Hubert   de    Burgh   and 

'  "  The  law  willeth  not  that  any  should  bring  him  to  London,  "sub  poena  quat- 

be  taken  by  surprise  in  the  King's  Court.  tuor  milhum  hbrarum."    Cal.  Close  liolU, 

.  .  .    She  (defendant)  must  have  notice  IG  Hen.  HI,  p.  161;   Royal  Letters  (Rolls 

in  the  writ  of  the  articles  on  which  she  will  Scries),  i,  523. 

be  arraigned,  and  that  is  tlie  law  of  the 


INTRODUCTION  XXXIX 

of  the  penal  clause  in  the  -prccmunirc,  the  writ  to  the  sheriff,  is  given  in  our 
case  Lombards  v.  Mercers  (p.  43).  There  is  a  tradition  of  long  standing, 
voiced  by  Sir  Francis  Palgrave  and  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography, 
that  the  ingenious  author  of  the  writ  of  subpoena  was  no  other  than  John 
of  Waltham  later  bishop  of  Salisbury.  The  assumption  is  based  on  a  com- 
plaint of  the  commons  as  late  as  the  reign  of  Henry  V,  when  they  rashly 
declared  that  such  writs  were  a  novelty,  never  known  before  the  time  of 
Richard  II,  which  were  invented  by  the  late  bishop  of  Salisbury.^  Now 
John  of  Waltham  was  not  even  a  clerk  in  the  chancery  in  1363  when  the 
writ  appeared.  He  is  then  noticed  as  a  servant  of  the  bishop  of  Salisbury.^ 
He  was  a  clerk  in  the  chancery  hardly  before  1374,'  master  of  the  rolls  in 
1381  and  keeper  of  the  privy  seal  in  1386.  In  view  of  these  conflicting 
statements,  it  is  verj^  likely  that  as  keeper  of  the  privy  seal  Waltham  was 
responsible  for  the  translation  of  the  subpoena  into  French  and  its  issue 
under  the  privy  seal.  This  was  the  novelty  not  known  before  the  time  of 
Richard  II,  against  which  the  commons  had  reason  to  complain.  It  is 
noticeable  that  there  had  been  no  direct  complaint  against  the  subpoenas 
as  originally  issued  in  the  chancery,  and  in  the  fifteenth  century  it  was  the 
subpoena  under  the  privy  seal  that  esjiecially  stirred  resentment.  Thus 
John  of  Waltham,  if  he  did  not  originate  the  writ,  may  at  least  be  credited 
with  converting  it  into  its  most  detested  form,  and  for  this,  many  would  say, 
he  deserves  his  evil  commemoration. 

Thenceforth  the  subpoena,  whether  under  the  great  seal  or  the  privy 
seal,  was  the  preferred  instrument  of  the  council  and  the  chancery.  It  was 
also  used,  we  are  told,  in  the  exchequer,^  and  in  special  emergencies  by 
parliament.  But  instead  of  adopting  it,  parliament  was  averse  to  a  process 
so  repugnant  to  the  common  law,  and  sought  to  effect  its  modification.  It 
should  be  used  only  in  emergency,  "  as  deemed  necessary  at  the  discretion 
of  the  chancellor  or  the  council."  ^  Among  the  proposals  of  reform,  it  was 
suggested  that  the  subpoena  should  be  enrolled  and  made  patent,  its  misuse 
should  be  ground  for  an  exception,  and  a  clerk  who  issued  one  wrongly 
should  be  punished,  but  the  king  would  consent  to  no  such  nugatory 
measures.  At  length,  under  the  stress  of  Jack  Cade's  rebellion,  parliament 
legitimized  the  writs,  in  riot  cases  only,  for  a  period  of  seven  years.' 

There  were  also  writs  of  attachment  and  arrest,  though  such  a  process 
was  not  always  more  cogent  than  a  subpoena.  In  our  case  of  Eslurmy  v. 
Courtenay,  a  writ  of  arrest  had  already  failed,  when  the  earl  of  Devonshire 
by  a  subpoena  was  told  to  bring  Robert  Yeo  with  him.  This  was  a  variant 
of  the  usual  subpoena,  afterwards  known  as  ducens  tecum.  A  writ  of  arrest 
was  commonly  issued  to  a  sheriff,  a  serjeant  at  arms,  and  perhaps  other 

'  Rot.  Pari,  iv,  84.  complaint  of  the  commons;    no  writs  of 

'  Cal.  Pal.  RoUs,  p.  358.  the  kind  however  have  been  seen. 

»  Cal.  Close  RolU,  p.  86.  '  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  471;  also  267;  iv,  156. 

*  This   was   alleged    in  the   aforesaid  «  Statute  31  Hen.  VI,  c.  2. 


Xl  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S  COUNCIL 

competent  persons,  who  were  to  find  and  bring  the  party  wanted  before  the 
court  on  a  given  day.  Once  the  commissioners  were  told  to  bring  their 
captives  "  honourably  "  before  the  king  and  council; '  more  often  they  were 
asked  to  keep  them  safely.  In  an  extreme  instance  the  council,  on  infor- 
mation that  certain  marauders  were  active  in  Kent,  Surrey  and  Middlesex, 
appointed  a  commission  to  arrest  all  suspects  and  imprison  them  until 
further  order.-  In  one  case  the  commissioners  were  threatened  with  a 
penalty  of  £1000.^  On  the  failure  of  all  other  means,  the  most  drastic 
measure  possible  was  a  proclamation  of  outlawry.  By  a  writ  duly  issued  to 
the  sheriff  public  announcement  was  made  throughout  the  county  that 
so-and-so  should  appear,  or  be  made  to  appear,  at  a  time  and  place,  or 
suffer  the  severest  penalties.  In  the  case  of  a  noted  outlaw,  "  a  certain  son 
of  iniquity,"  proclamation  was  ordered  in  all  the  fairs  and  markets  of  Bed- 
ford and  Buckingham,  that  whoever  should  arrest  him  or  produce  his  body 
or  his  head,  alive  or  dead,  should  receive  a  reward  of  £100.''  In  one  of  the 
later  years  of  Henry  VI  there  is  an  instance  of  the  successive  use  of  writs  of 
the  privy  seal,  writs  under  the  great  seal,  a  proclamation,  a  commission  of 
arrest  and  finally  another  proclamation  under  threat  of  forfeiture.^ 

Pending  trial,  or  during  the  intervals  of  a  trial,  parties  were  committed 
to  prison  for  indefinite  lengths  of  time ;  two  or  three  years  of  durance  were 
nothing  extraordinary.  An  accuser  might  be  committed  as  well  as  a  de- 
fendant. The  law  which  safeguarded  judgments  of  life  or  limb  was  quite 
indifferent  to  the  abuses  that  grew  up  under  this  system.  But  for  those 
who  could  find  security,  "  mainprise,"  a  system  of  bonds  slightly  different 
from  bail,  was  willingly  allowed.  "  Mainpernors,"  as  the  sureties  were 
called,  bound  themselves  in  sums  of  money,  sometimes  as  high  as  £5000  or 
£10,000,  corps  pur  corps  to  have  the  party  wherever  wanted  on  a  given  day, 
and  in  some  cases  made  themselves  responsible  for  his  good  conduct  during 
the  interval.  Mainpernors,  it  was  once  decided,  shouUl  not  be  released  of 
their  sureties  when  the  party  came  to  court,  but  only  after  he  had  pleaded 
to  the  issue.'  The  amounts  of  money,  like  the  sums  stated  in  the  subpoena, 
were  theoretical,  suggesting  the  seriousness  of  the  matter  involved,  but 
were  never  strictly  exacted.  Illustrations  of  the  use  of  mainprise  are 
afforded  in  the  texts  of  Lombards  v.  Mercers  (p.  45),  and  Release  of  the 
Sureties  of  John  Davy  (p.  108).  The  obligations  were  at  first  by  no  means 
BO  perfunctory  as  they  afterwards  became,  and  offered  a  means  of  constraint 
no  doubt  more  effective  than  most  prisons.  But  in  connection  with  the 
sj'stem  of  arbitrary  arrest  the  practice  was  liable  to  abuse.  Parties  com- 
plain that  in  their  inability  to  give  security,  they  must  perforce  treat  with 
their  enemies  or  else  go  to  prison.' 

'  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  49  Edw.  Ill,  p.  156.  '  Cat.  Pat.  Rolls,  37  Hen.  VI,  p.  493, 

'  Ibid.  23  Hie.  II,  p.  597.  also,  p.  510. 

»  Nicolas,  V,  241.  •  Year  Books,  13-14   Edw.  Ill  (Uolls 

*  Ibid,  iii,  250.  Series),  p.  72. 

'  Rot.  Pari,  iv,  84. 


INTRODUCTION  xli 

The  parties  wore  told  to  come  before  the  couneil,  vbicmnque  fuerit,  on  a 
given  day,  ten  daj's  or  a  fortnight  beting  usually  allowed  in  the  writs,  and 
then  they  must  attend  from  day  to  day,  even  from  hour  to  hour,  until  their 
names  were  called  at  the  door  of  the  chamber.  According  to  the  circum- 
stances they  were  to  appear  "  in  proper  person,"  or,  if  allowed  in  the  writ, 
they  might  appear  by  proxy  or  attorney.  Litigants  were  likely  to  appear 
in  person  at  the  first  sitting,  and  then  with  the  permission  of  the  court  leave 
the  matter  to  attorneys.  In  all  civil  suits  the  parties  were  required  to  make 
full  submission  to  the  court,  in  alto  et  basso.  This  was  deemed  essential,  for 
one  could  hardly  be  bound  without  his  own  consent  to  an  extra-legal  pro- 
cedure. Once  it  was  declared  that  without  a  submission  the  trial  could  not 
go  on.'  The  final  award  was  likely  to  be  made  expressly  on  the  ground  of 
such  a  submission.  Petitioners  often  expressed  their  willingness  to  submit 
to  the  council,  and  sometimes  offered  bonds  as  high  as  £5000.^  Thus  no 
exception  could  afterwards  be  taken  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court.  The 
case  was  opened  with  the  reading  of  the  bill,  or  its  equivalent,  and  then  if 
desired  an  adjournment  was  taken.  The  pleadings  followed.  In  this  fea- 
ture there  was  a  gradual  change  from  the  oral  pleadings  of  the  first  half  of 
the  fourteenth  century  to  the  written  pleadings  afterwards  elaborated. 
The  council  was  slower  than  the  courts  of  common  law  to  change  to  written 
pleadings,  and  then  it  adopted  the  methods  of  the  civil  law  in  the  answer, 
replication,  duplication,  triplication,  etc.,  which  like  certain  other  features 
of  equitable  procedure  are  noticed  first  in  the  courts  of  conamon  law.'  Still, 
oral  pleadings  in  the  older  style  continued  into  the  reign  of  Richard  II.* 
The  object  of  each  plea  was  to  defeat  the  claim  of  an  opponent  on  grounds 
independent  of  its  truth.  It  was  likely  to  present  an  exception,  rarely  a 
demurrer.  In  contrast  to  the  method  of  the  common  law  the  aim  of  the 
pleadings  was  to  reduce  the  issue,  rather  than  join  the  issue.  The  great 
danger  of  this  form  of  argument  was  prolixity,  such  as  became  the  scandal 
of  the  admiralty  and  the  later  court  of  chancery.  But  the  council  was  suc- 
cessful in  keeping  its  proceedings  within  reasonable  bounds.  Replications, 
which  were  restricted  in  their  scope  to  the  matter  already  outlined,  were 
infrequent,  while  duplications  and  triplications  were  almost  unknown.^  A 
variant  of  the  traditional  practice  is  seen  in  the  method  of  reducing  the 
claims  of  the  parties  to  a  series  of  articles,  in  which  each  claim  and  answer 
are  dealt  with  singly.^  After  the  pleadings,  the  matter  in  dispute  was  put  to 
proof  according  to  the  needs  of  the  case.  Most  often  this  consisted  of  an 
examination  of  the  charters,  letters,  and  other  writings  which  the  parties 
were  required  to  bring.     The  record  of  any  court,  or  an  exemplification, 

1  Col.  Close  Rolls,  40  Edw.  Ill,  p.  238.  '  They  are  mentioned  in  Nicolas,  ii, 

2  Ibid.  51  Edw.  Ill,  p.  547.  295. 

'  See  Britton,  i,   142;    I'ear  Books,   1  »  Cal.  Close  RoUs,  40  Edw.   Ill,  pp. 

and  2  Edw.  II,  p.  57.  302-305. 

*  E.  g.    Suit    of    John    Cheyne,    The 
King's  Council,  p.  513. 


Xlii  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S  COUNCIL 

could  be  brought  in  by  vrrh  of  certiorari.  Juries  were  never  directly  em- 
ployed; if  the  verdict  of  a  jurj-  was  required,  a  writ  of  inquisition  was 
issued  to  a  sheriff.  Witnesses  were  usually  not  necessary,  but  were  cited 
and  examined  whenever  wanted.  If  more  searching  means  were  necessarj', 
the  parties  and  witnesses  were  put  under  oath  to  tell  the  truth,  and  then 
were  subjected  to  an  inquisitorial  examination,  a  method  that  will  be  dis- 
cussed in  connexion  with  criminal  trials.  By  such  means,  it  will  be  seen, 
the  council  and  the  chancerj-  were  peculiarlj-  well  fitted  for  eliciting  e\n- 
dence  in  the  equitable  cases  of  trusts  and  verbal  agreements,  which  were 
quite  elusive  to  the  methods  of  the  common  law. 

In  criminal  trials  the  defendant  was  required  to  come  in  person  and 
answer  the  charges,  which  w^ere  most  likely  not  known  to  him  in  advance. 
He  was  of  course  not  allowed  the  advantage  of  counsel,  and  he  might  or 
might  not  be  faced  wnth  his  accusers.  If  he  did  not  immediately  confess  or 
satisfactorily  explain  the  charges,  he  was  put  to  the  method  known  as  the 
interrogaton*-  examination.  This  was  an  acknowledged  feature  of  the  civil 
and  canonical  law,  which  in  its  extreme  form  was  pursued  by  the  church 
especially  but  not  exclusively  in  heresy  trials.  It  was  a  method  that  was 
creeping  into  secular  practice,  in  the  courts  of  king's  bench  and  common 
pleas,  as  early  as  the  reign  of  Edward  I.'  Sometimes  it  was  administered 
out  of  court,  by  juries  examining  witnesses,  and  in  one  instance  a  prelimi- 
nary' examination,  having  been  conducted  by  certain  clergy-men,  was  made 
to  ser\'e  instead  of  an  indictment.^  In  the  reign  of  Edward  II,  a  plaintiff 
alleged  that  he  had  not  been  duly  summoned;  the  summoners  were  then 
haled  to  court  and  examined ;  of  one  of  them  it  is  said  that  he  was  sworn  and 
examined  by  the  justices.'  As  it  appears  in  the  beginning,  there  is  not  the 
slightest  ground  for  the  current  belief  that  the  practice  was  instituted  by 
the  chancellors,  however  much  they  made  use  of  it  at  a  later  time.  In  the 
hands  of  the  council  the  interrogatorj-  method  can  be  observed  in  such 
cases  as  Rex  v.  Gerdeston  (p.  30),  The  Examination  of  Gilbert  Blount  (p.  33), 
Ughtred  v.  Musgrave  (p.  59),  and  others.  As  practically  administered  the 
examinations  were  of  several  kinds  or  degrees,  according  to  the  nature  of 
the  case  and  the  advancement  of  the  art  of  questioning. 

(1)  In  c'\\\\  cases,  also  in  criminal  cases  of  forgery,  counterfeiting  and  the 
like,  there  was  an  examination  consisting  of  an  inspection  of  documents,  a 
comparison  of  records,  a  scrutiny  of  seals,  coins,  etc.  In  such  matters  the 
clerks  of  the  chancerj'  were  the  acknowledged  experts.  Likewise  persons 
before  the  court  were  examined  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  they  were 
minors,  deaf  mutes,  madmen  or  lepers. 

(2)  Then  there  was  a  mild  form  of  interrogation,  later  known  as  ore 
tenus,  wherein  no  oath  or  means  of  constraint  was  applied,  which  was 
intended  merely  to  elicit  a  confession  or  secure  certain  information.    This 

'  Abb.  PUic.  pp.  246,  293,  330,  331,  etc.  »  Year  Books,  1  and  2  Edw.  II,  p.  19. 

'  Ibid.  p.  345. 


INTRODUCTION  xHii 

was  often  forthcoming  when  the  person  without  severity  was  "  spoken  to  " 
or  "  reasoned  with."  It  was  a  severer  form  when  the  parties,  defendants, 
plaintiffs,  and  even  witnesses  were  put  under  oath  or  otherwise  solemnly- 
charged  to  tell  the  truth  and  answer  whatever  might  be  asked  of  them.  It 
was  a  powerful  weapon  in  the  hands  of  the  court,  entirely  averse  to  the 
common  law,  that  could  thus  question  a  defendant  and  require  him  to 
incriminate  himself.  Whenever  several  co-defendants  or  witnesses  were 
e.xamined  in  turn  separately,  as  in  Esturmy  v.  Courtenay  (p.  79),  any  con- 
tradictions or  discrepancies  in  the  testimony  would  easily  be  noticed.  The 
admissions  or  confession  of  any  one  could  of  course  be  used  as  information 
against  the  others.  The  questions  were  not  necessarily  prepared  in  ad- 
vance, but  were  asked  informally  and  adapted  to  the  pliability  of  the 
witness.  The  aim  at  all  times  was  to  extort  confessions,  without  which  a 
condemnation  might  bo  of  questionable  validity. 

(3)  By  a  still  stricter  method,  taken  over  bodily  from  the  church,  a  set 
of  questions  based  upon  the  allegations  in  hand  was  carefully  prepared  in 
advance.  These  were  propounded  to  the  witness  singly  and  his  answers 
recorded.  The  case  of  The  Chamberlains  v.  Chesterfield  in  1366  '  is  an  early 
example  of  the  written  questions  and  answers,  while  the  Bedford  Riot  (p. 
10-i)  in  1439  affords  the  most  perfect  illustration  that  we  have  of  the  kind. 
The  questions  were  elaborated  and  propounded  by  the  court,  never,  so  far 
as  appears,  by  the  parties  to  one  another.  They  were  put  by  the  chancellor, 
or  whoever  was  presiding  at  the  moment. 

As  was  true  of  other  features  of  extraordinary  procedure,  the  interroga- 
tory examinations  were  not  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  council  and  the 
chancery.  The  same  method  was  applied,  though  not  frequently,  in  the 
king's  bench,  in  the  exchequer,  and  even  in  parliament.-  But  what  was 
elsewhere  an  exceptional  expedient,  became  the  common  practice  of  the 
council.  With  some  inconsistency,  parliament  objected  to  the  examinations 
as  a  subversion  of  the  law  of  the  land,  making  special  criticism  of  the  fact 
that  they  were  held  without  record  or  entry.'  At  the  same  time  parliament 
did  much  to  encourage  the  system  in  individual  cases,  and  even  legiti- 
matized it  in  certain  statutory  offences.  This  was  probably  the  intent  of 
the  Act  8  Ric.  II  on  false  records,  wherein  the  king  and  council  were  au- 
thorized to  proceed  "  after  the  manner  and  form  that  seemed  to  them 
reasonable."  The  Statute  13  Hen.  IV  on  riots  granted  that  offenders 
should  be  "  put  to  answer  "  and  punished  by  the  king  and  council.  Again 
the  Statute  8  Edw.  IV  on  liveries  pennitted  all  the  courts  to  proceed  "  as 
well  by  examination  as  by  trial." 

Seldom  if  ever  were  the  examinations  carried  on  in  full  council.  The 
method  was  peculiarly  well  adapted  to  committees  which  were  constantly 

>  Cal.  Close  Rolls,  39  Edw.  Ill,  p.  114. 

'  E.  g.  the  case  of  the  bishop  of  Exeter  in  1351  {Rot.  Part,  ii,  245),  and  of  Ralph 
Ferrers  in  1380  (ibid,  iii,  93).  '  Ibid,  iv,  84. 


xliv  CASES  BEFORE  THE  KING's  COUNCIL 

emploj'ed  for  such  work.  There  was  as  yet  no  sj'stem  of  appointing  com- 
mittees, much  less  were  there  any  standing  committees.  Under  the  elastic 
organization  of  the  council  it  was  not  required  that  more  than  four  be  in 
attendance  for  matters  of  minor  concern;  often  there  were  but  three.  But 
on  occasion  it  was  expressly  given  to  "  some  of  the  council  "  to  make  an 
examination  of  the  question  in  hand  and  report  their  findings.  The  com- 
mittees might  be  named  by  the  king,  but  sometimes  they  were  deputed  by 
the  council  itself.  Once  in  considering  the  claims  of  alien  prisoners  the 
council  found  itself  too  busy  to  go  into  the  evidence,  and  so  committed  the 
matter  to  a  bishop  and  a  lajTuan  for  inspection  and  examination.'  On 
another  occasion  the  council  agreed  to  act  in  accordance  with  the  report  of 
its  committee.^  In  Legal  v.  Wodeward  (p.  92),  a  case  pertaining  to  the 
king's  revenues,  the  inquiry  was  given  to  the  treasurer  and  barons  of  the 
exchequer,  who  returned  the  certification  here  given  at  length.  In  the 
Frauncej's  case  two  examiners  went  to  a  private  house  where  the  witness 
lay  sick.'  In  imitation  of  the  professional  examiners  employed  by  the 
church,  there  were  in  the  chancery  certain  clerks  mentioned  as  regular 
"  examiners."  ■•  No  examiner  however  in  the  council  appears  before  the 
time  of  the  Tudors.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  interrogatories  were  anti- 
pathetic to  the  common  law,  they  were  persistently  given  to  judges  to 
administer  whenever  judicial  questions  were  involved,  until  complaint  was 
made  in  parliament  that  they  were  thus  being  kept  from  their  regular  work 
of  hearing  pleas. 

One  other  mode  of  delegation  adopted  by  the  council  from  the  common 
law  was  by  writ  of  dedimus  potestatem,^  whereby  an  examination  or  any 
other  function  of  the  court  might  be  performed  at  a  distance.  The  com- 
missioners were  likely  to  be  local  men  not  otherwise  connected  with  the 
court.  The  method  had  its  advantages  but  encouraged  the  e\ils  peculiar 
to  affidavits.  So  far  as  the  records  shew  it  was  sparingly  used  by  the  coun- 
cil,^ but  cultivated  extensively  by  the  later  court  of  chancery. 

With  all  these  agencies  of  assistance,  in  most  cases  all  that  remained  was 
a  final  hearing  or  "  rehearsal  "  of  the  matter  before  the  council.  Unless 
there  was  need  of  deliberation,  the  trial  was  speedily  brought  to  a  conclu- 
sion. Everj'thing,  so  far  as  possible,  was  reduced  to  writing,  and  in  the 
longer  cases  an  orderly  record  or  engrossment  was  made  of  the  entire  pro- 
ceedings. Points  for  debate  were  few  and  easily  singled  out.  The  coun- 
cillors were  finally  asked  for  their  opinions  (senteniiae),  and  on  the  most 
formal  occasions  these  were  required  of  the  lords  individually.  There  was 
no  rule  as  j'et  in  favour  of  beginning  with  the  lowest  rank.  The  judges, 
when  asked  for  their  advice,  gave  it  jointly.     It  was  a  rule  repeatedly 

'  Nicolas,  i,  190.  '  Ibid.  3  and  4  Edw.  II,  pp.  151,  191; 

»  Ibid.  192.  12-13  Edw.  Ill,  p.  182. 

•  The  King's  Council,  p.  519.  •  E.  g.  Nicolaa,  ii,  288;  vi,  271. 

«  Year  Books,  3  Edw.  II,  p.  109. 


INTRODUCTION  xlv 

enacted  that  the  majority  (major  pars)  should  decide.  Before  a  final  decree 
was  reached,  in  all  c<niitablc  cases,  reference  must  be  made  to  the  king,  for 
the  essence  of  all  such  jurisdiction  was  a  dispensation  of  the  royal  preroga- 
tive. In  contrast  to  the  courts  of  common  law,  the  council  and  likewise 
the  chancery  were  given  little  authority  by  general  warrant,  and  so  re- 
quired a  special  warrant  in  each  separate  case.  Whether  the  decree  should 
then  be  pronounced  by  the  council,  or  by  the  king  on  advice  of  the  council, 
usage  is  conflicting.^  In  either  event,  the  final  decree  is  the  one  part  of  the 
record  that  must  be  written  in  court.  In  the  briefer  cases  this  was  done  on 
the  dorse  of  the  petitions,  otherwise  on  a  separate  parchment.  Whether 
because  few  cases  came  to  a  final  decree,  as  the  writer  believes,  having  been 
settled  informally  either  in  or  out  of  court,  or  because  there  has  been  a  dis- 
proportional  loss  of  such  records,  few  of  these  decrees  are  extant.  The  case 
of  Whele  v.  Fortescue  (p.  117)  affords  a  good  illustration  of  a  decree  in  the 
star  chamber. 

Finally,  as  to  punishments  and  penalties,  fines  were  imposed,  and  im- 
prisonment and  chastisement  inflicted  without  definite  restriction.  But 
in  view  of  the  extra-legal  character  of  its  procedure,  the  council  acted  in 
these  matters  with  marked  caution.  Although  the  limitation  as  to  life  and 
limb,  desired  by  parliament,  failed  to  be  enacted  in  the  statutes,  the  council 
never  failed  to  observe  it.  Even  the  lesser  forms  of  bodily  mutilation,  such 
as  slitting  the  nose  and  lopping  off  the  ears,  inflicted  by  the  modern  court, 
were  not  known  in  the  middle  ages.  Only  one  of  our  cases  (p.  104)  men- 
tions such  a  thing  as  the  pillory.  The  penalties  threatened  in  the  subpoena 
and  other  instruments  were  theoretical,  to  be  understood  as  an  intimation 
of  the  seriousness  of  the  matter  in  hand,  and  never  literally  exacted.  Fines 
were  usually  in  the  form  of  amerciaments,  being  adjusted  not  in  proportion 
to  the  offence  but  whatever  could  feasibly  be  exacted  in  return  for  a  pardon 
or  release.  Imprisonments  were  indeterminate,  "  until  it  is  otherwise 
ordered."  The  Fleet  was  the  prison  particularly  used  by  the  council  and 
the  chancery.  Severe  sentences  were  passed  upon  highwaymen,  fraudulent 
merchants,  and  pirates;  sometimes  also  upon  peculant  ministers,  as  in 
Rex  V.  Middleton  (p.  37).  Quite  as  often  without  any  sentence,  but  as  a 
result  of  a  trial,  an  officer  was  dismissed  in  disgrace,  e.  g.  Rex  v.  Musgrave 
(p.  54),  Danvers  v.  Broket  (p.  101).  Even  when  criminality  was  involved 
the  council  seemed  to  prefer  the  coiu-se  of  a  civil  suit,  in  which  the  parties 
voluntarily  submitted,  e.  g.  Atte  Wode  v.  Clifford  (p.  89).  Here  the  defend- 
ant was  required  to  make  restitution  but  escaped  immediate  condemnation. 
In  the  treatment  of  knights  and  nobles,  who  were  constantly  proved  to  be 
malfeasors,  there  was  shown  a  surprising  degree  of  leniency  and  timidity. 
The  severe  sentence  passed  in  Esturmy  v.  Courtenay  (p.  81)  is  exceptional, 
and  then  the  defendant  was  recommended  to  mercy.    Punitive  sentences 

'  In  a  suit  in  1393  the  king  decrees  and  the  chancellor  is  to  make  execution.  Rot. 
Pari,  iii,  311. 


Xlvi  CASES  BEFORE  THE  KING's  COUNCIL 

upon  men  of  rank  may  be  found  in  parliament,  but  before  the  council  they 
were  rare.  However  much  they  were  threatened,'  there  was  hardly  another 
instance,  prior  to  the  Tudors,  in  which  a  knight  or  a  lord  was  punished  in 
any  degree  proportional  to  his  offence.  In  the  cases  of  great  feuds,  the 
council  was  inclined  to  bring  the  parties,  if  possible,  to  an  accord,  e.  g. 
Neville  v.  Neville  (p.  101).  It  manifested  great  faith  in  oaths  and  bonds  as 
surety  for  good  conduct.  Most  of  all  the  council  under  the  Lancastrians 
was  in  the  control  of  lords  and  knights,  who  were  themselves  too  far  in- 
volved in  the  practices  of  livery  and  maintenance  to  take  any  vigorous 
measures  against  them.  Under  the  Yorkists  some  of  the  worst  known  cases 
of  violence  and  oppression  occurred,  yet  the  council  was  feeble  in  dealing 
with  them.  Political  partisanship  was  sometimes  involved.  In  Poche  v. 
Idle  (p.  116)  the  last  stage  of  impotence  and  disruption  seems  to  have  been 
reached,  when  the  best  hope  of  the  complainant  is  that  one  great  lord  may 
be  set  against  another  in  her  defence.  Thus  far  statutory  authority  was 
lacking,  which  was  not  clearly  granted  until  the  Act  3  Hen.  VII,  among 
other  provisions  strengthening  the  court,  directed  the  council  "  to  punish 
such  as  they  find  defective." 

'  E.  g.  Nicolas,  V,  175;  vi,  ISl,  206. 


PART    II 


NOTES  ON  THE  CASES 

Boistard  v.  Cumbwell.  —  Taylor  v.  Rochester.  —  Valence  v.  Bishop  of  Worcester. 

—  Citizens  of  London  v.  Bishop  of  Bath.  — •  Bishop  of  Sabina  v.  Bedewynde.  — 
Rex  V.  Gerdeston.  —  Cosfeld  v.  Leveys.  —  Rex  v.  Middleton.  —  Rex  v.  Rouceby 
and  Avenel.  —  Burton-on-Trent  v.  Meynell.  —  Lombards  v.  Mercers.  —  Parson  of 
Langar  v.  Conyngsby.  —  Molyns  v.  Fiennes.  —  Ughtred  v.  Musgrave.  —  Lowestoft 
V.  Yarmouth.  —  Taylors  v.  Brembre.  —  Petition  of  the  Hansards.  —  Esturmy  v. 
Courtenay.  —  Tenants  of  Winkfield  v.  Abingdon.  —  Atte  Wode  v.  Clifford.  —  Wy- 
thum  V.  Men  of  Kampen.  —  Duval  v.  Countess  of  Arundel.  —  Danvers  v.  Broket. 

—  Neville  v.  Neville.  —  Confession  of  John  Forde.  —  Examination  into  the  Bed- 
ford Riot.  —  Heyron  v.  Proute.  —  Tenants  v.  Waynflete. 

BOISTARD  V.  CUMBWELL 

1243  The  first  case  that  we  are  able  to  present  was  considered  to  require  the 
attention  of  the  council  on  account  of  the  international  question  involved. 
It  was  an  action  of  novel  disseisin,  the  defendant  maintaining  that  the 
plaintiff  was  not  the  heir,  but  that  the  heir  was  the  plaintiff's  elder  brother. 
That  brother,  however,  lived  in  Normandy,  and  had  done  homage  to  the 
bishop  of  Bayeux,  who  was  a  homager  of  the  king  of  France,  with  whom, 
and  therefore  with  his  feudatories,  Henry  was  at  war.  If  the  rightful  heir 
were  thereby  incapacitated  from  inheriting,  was  the  ejection  of  the  next 
heir  by  the  defendant,  the  superior  lord,  a  disseisin  ?  In  whom,  in  short, 
in  this  state  of  facts,  did  the  seisin  reside  ?  It  is  unfortunate  that  owing 
to  the  absence  of  the  "  chief  justiciar,"  the  archbishop  of  York,  no  record 
remains  of  the  final  judgment  of  the  council.  Nevertheless,  the  law  on 
the  subject  of  the  tenure  of  land  by  persons  abroad  was  sufficiently  es- 
tablished, and  in  the  year  1244  was  put  in  execution  on  a  large  scale.' 

The  heir  by  right  of  birth  to  three  carucates  of  Berkshire  land,  Roger 
Boistard,  though  resident  in  Normandy,  does  not  appear  to  have  been  an 
alien  born.  But  he  was  involved  in  a  mesh  of  conflicting  feudal  obligations 
not  uncommon  in  those  times.  He  is  described  as  being  in  fealty  to  the 
king  of  France  and  as  having  done  homage  to  the  bishop  of  Bayeux.  He 
would  do  fealty  as  a  freeholder,  and  probably  to  a  royal  official ;  ^  but 
homage  imported  a  more  intimate  relation  and  was  a  ceremony  which 
could  only  be  performed  between  the  lord  and  the  tenant  in  person. 

'  Matthew  of  Paris,  iv,  288.      "  Nermann!  qui  terras  in  AngUa  habuerunt  privantur 
eisdem  jussu  regis  Angliae,  rege  Francorum  causam  suscitante." 
»  Littleton,  §  92;  Coke,  1  Inst.  68  a. 

xlvii 


Xlviii  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

Further,  homage  involved  a  presumption  that  the  tenure  was  by  knight 
service '  and  the  sj'mpathies  of  the  holder  of  land  would  naturally  rank 
themselves  with  the  extent  of  his  territorial  interest.  In  England,  at  least 
in  this  case,  it  only  extended  to  their  ploughlands.*  We  may  infer,  therefore, 
that  Roger  elected  as  his  place  of  abode  the  scene  of  his  social  importance. 
Moreover,  "  one  becomes  a  lord's  subject  by  doing  homage  to  him,  and 
this  done,  the  nationality  of  one's  ancestors  and  the  place  of  one's  birth 
are  insignificant."  ^ 

At  a  time  when  powerful  persons  held  land  both  in  Normandy  and 
England  it  was  impossible  to  assert  a  principle  of  an  exclusive  nationality 
determined  by  place  of  birth.  As  a  matter  of  theorj'  in  England,  Nor- 
mandy, though  step  by  step  occupied  by  the  French  forces,  remained 
under  the  allegiance  of  King  Henry.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  power  which 
proved  strong  enough  to  compel  the  Anglo-Norman  lando\vner  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Channel  to  feudal  obedience  exercised  a  legal  as  well  as 
a  practical  pressure  upon  him.  Nevertheless,  his  services  were  due  in 
respect  of  his  land  in  England  to  his  feudal  lord  there,  and  Bracton  and 
Britton  have  no  hesitation  in  prescribing  the  course  of  conduct  incumbent 
upon  him.  His  personal  services  are  due  to  the  superior  lord '  to  whom 
he  has  sworn  allegiance '  by  homage.  "  For  allegiance  is  of  so  high  a 
nature,  that  if  two  lords  are  at  difference,  the  tenant  must  perform  his 
service  to  his  Uege  lord  against  his  other  lord  in  his  own  person,  and  must 
perform  his  service  to  his  other  lord  by  attorney.  And  homage  is  so  strong 
a  bond  between  lord  and  tenant  that  none  may  without  judgment  or  the 
mutual  consent  of  the  parties  recede  from  the  homage  so  long  as  the  tenant 
shall  keep  in  his  hands  the  tenements  or  fees  for  which  he  is  boimd  to  per- 
form such  service."  *  The  ideal  landholder,  therefore,  while  he  himself 
will  appear  with  his  Norman  retainers  in  the  French  camp,  will  have  taken 
steps  to  insure  the  presence  of  the  English  contingent  due  from  him  in 
respect  of  his  English  land  in  the  opposing  army.  Bracton  quotes  two 
instances  of  eminent  personages  who  acted  upon  this  principle  during  the 
sixty  years'  struggle  for  Normandy.' 

It  is  not  likely,  human  nature  being  what  it  is,  that  respect  for  these 
feudal  contentions  restrained  lords  or  heirs  in  England  from  laying  hands 
on  the  land  of  those  serving  with  the  king's  enemies  abroad.  Bracton  gives 
by  way  of  illustration  of  the  use  of  exceptions  an  ijnaginary  case  on  all 
fours  with  that  in  our  text.  "  If,"  he  says,  "  a  man  living  in  obedience 
to  the  king  of  France  claims  land  against  you,  you  may  except  against 

'  Coke,  1  Inst.  07  b.  •  Bracton,  fo.  427. 

♦  The  knight's  fee  was,  it  is  true,  an  '  "Ligoiincc,  a  liuando,  being  the  high- 
indeterminate  area.  Sec  Pollock  and  est  and  greatest  obligation  of  dutie  and 
Maitland,  i,  235.  obedience  that  can  be."  Coke,  i  Insl. 12da.. 

'  Ibid.  443.     Homage  could  be  done  to  *  Urilton,  ii,  41,  17.5  b. 

more  than  one  lord,  "  liege  homage  "  to  •  liracton,  fo.  427. 
one  only. 


INTRODUCTION  xlix 

him";  j'our  exception,  however,  is  not  a  "  peremptory,"  it  is  but  a  "  dila- 
tory "  one.  It  may  lose  its  force  when  the  king  enjoys  his  own  again.'" 
That  condition  remained  unfulfilled  and  it  is  probable  that  the  land,  hav- 
ing been  seized  into  the  king's  hand,  was  released  to  neither  litigant,  but 
shared  the  lot  of  other  such  properties  in  the  following  year." 


TAYLOR  V.  ROCHESTER 

The  need  for  a  tribunal,  such  as  the  council,  exercising  a  control  over 
royal  officers,  and  especially  over  the  judges,  is  well  illustrated  by  the  case 
of  Taj'lor  against  Sir  Solomon  Rochester.  It  belongs  to  a  dramatic  moment 
of  English  history  when  King  Edward  I  imprisoned  and  fined  the  judges 
who  during  his  absence  of  three  years  m  Gascony  were  proved  guilty  of 
haviBg  abused  their  powers  and  perverted  the  course  of  justice.  A  royal 
commission  was  appointed  on  13  October,  1289,  to  investigate  the  "  clamor 
miserorum  "  with  which  the  king's  ears  were  assailed  upon  his  return. 
The  constitution  of  this  commission  and  its  proceedings  are  set  out  at 
length  in  the  Introduction  to  the  State  Trials  of  the  Reign  of  Edward  the 
First,  published  by  the  Royal  Historical  Society  (Camden  Series)  in  1906. 
The  trials  which  there  follow  are  select  cases,  and  the  defendant  of  these 
papers,  Sir  Solomon  de  Roucestre,  or  Rochester,  is  prosecuted  upon  other 
charges  (pp.  11-17,  67-70).  In  the  present  instance  the  offence  alleged 
against  him  belongs  to  3  February,  1289,  and  the  complaint  may  have 
been  one  of  those  which  overwhelmed  the  king  on  his  return  home  and  led 
to  the  subsequent  investigation.  But  the  published  analysis  of  the  rolls 
shews  that  it  was  not  one  of  those  cases  upon  which  Rochester  was  actually 
tried. 

Of  the  complainant  Huwe  le  Tayllur,  or  Hugh  the  Tailor,  we  know 
nothing  except  that  it  may  be  inferred  from  the  substance  of  his  complaint 
that  his  name  had  already  ceased  to  designate  his  trade,  and  that  he  was, 
in  fact,  a  prosperous  farmer.  Sir  Solomon  Rochester  was  an  ecclesiastic 
who  had  been  employed  by  Henry  III  in  a  legal  capacity,  and  had  as  long 
before  as  1274  served  as  a  justice  in  eyre  for  Middlesex  and  after  that 
year  for  other  coimties.  That  he  had  ever  gone  circuit  in  Wiltshire  appears 
to  be  a  fact  hitherto  unknown  to  his  biographers.'  He  is  mentioned  from 
time  to  time  as  one  of  the  king's  council.  The  rolls  preserving  the  inquiries 
of  the  "  auditores  querelarum,"  who  sat  for  three  years  at  Westminster, 

">  Bracton,  fo.  298,  415  b,  427  b,  428  b.  firms  Pollock  and  Maitland's  interpretar 

Pollock  and  Maitland,  i,  444.     See  also  tion  of  "  donee  terrae  fuerint  communes  " 

Bracton's  Note  Book  (Ed.  F.  W.  Maitland,  as  against  that  of  Coke,  /   Inst.  129  b. 

1887)  ii,  case  110.     The  phrase  used  by  See  PoUock  and  Maitland,  i,  445  n. 
Bracton  in  stating  a  similar  case  on  fo.  "  See  n.  1,  p.  xlvii. 

415  b,  "  donee  terrae  et  regna  communia  '  See  Did.  Nat.  Biog.    The  commission 

extiterint  actio  talibus  denegatur,"  con-  is  given  in  Cal.  Pal.  Rolls,  p.  311. 


1  CASES  BEFORE  THE  KING'S  COUNCIL 

contain  four  cases  in  which  he  is  accused  of  perverting  justice.  That  his 
conduct  must  have  been  exceptionally  scandalous  is  to  be  inferred  from 
the  fact  that  the  fine  imposed  upon  him,  the  huge  sum  of  £2,100,  was  third 
in  order  of  magnitude  of  those  exacted  from  the  ten  principal  delinquents.^ 
After  this  time  he  ceased  to  be  employed  as  a  judge.  Two  other  persons 
mentioned  in  this  bill  of  complaint  also  appear  in  the  above-mentioned 
State  Trials.  Hugh  le  Taylour  files  a  complaint  against  Sir  John  de  Wotton,* 
who  had  been  sheriff  of  Wilts  in  1281,  and  his  complaint  is  successful.*  It 
is  not  a  violent  inference  that,  assuming  the  story  told  by  Taylor  in  the 
present  case  to  be  true,  Wotton's  conduct  was  prompted  by  personal  ani- 
mosity. The  local  names  suggest  that  the  complainant  and  defendant 
may  have  been  neighbours.  Wotton  is,  it  is  true,  a  not  uncoirmion  place- 
name.  But  it  happens  that  the  place  of  that  name  in  Wiltshire,  known  as 
Wotton-Basset,  is  only  ten  miles  from  Wanborough,  where  Sir  John  seized 
some  of  the  complainant's  chattels.  Of  the  nominal  plaintiff,  John  de 
Tauy,  in  the  proceedings  of  which  Taylor  complains,  we  hear  nothing, 
except  that  he  was  the  stalking-horse  employed  by  Rochester.  An  exe- 
cution was  levied  on  Taylor's  lands  for  the  large  sum  of  £40.  The  demand, 
indeed,  was  for  £50  and,  inasmuch  as  Taylor  alleges  that  there  were  other 
goods  to  satisfj'  the  claim,  it  is  not  clear  why  the  sheriff's  bailiff  elected  to 
commit  an  illegality  by  seizing  the  beasts  of  plough  while  neglecting  to 
realize  the  sum  sued  for.  At  any  rate,  it  is  alleged  that,  although  the  law 
forbade  the  seizure  of  beasts  of  plough,  and  even  laid  upon  justices  in  eyre 
the  duty  of  inquiring  into  statutory  offences  of  this  kind,  Rochester,  him- 
self a  justice  in  eyre,  sanctioned  these  proceedings.  The  plaintiff  estimates 
Ms  losses  at  £22.  A  comparison  of  his  figures,  unfortunately  incomplete, 
with  those  of  the  prices  of  stock  published  by  Thorold  Rogers  in  his  History 
of  Agriculture  and  Prices  shews  that  his  estimates  erred  on  the  side  of 
moderation.  Of  the  offence  of  maintenance,  with  which  Rochester  is 
charged,  a  common  mode  of  oppression  in  the  Miildle  Ages,  enough  is 
said  in  the  notes.  It  long  survived  the  fines  and  penalties  inflicted  by  the 
retributive  justice  of  King  Edward  I. 


VALENCE  V.  BISHOP  OF  WORCESTER 

1294  The  case  of  William  of  Valence  against  Godfrey  GifTard,  bishop  of 
Worcester,  is  one  of  those  thought  by  Hale  worthy  of  transcription  into  his 
MS.  collection.  It  has  this  feature  of  interest  among  others,  that  it  was 
heard  by  the  king  and  council  when  the  court  was  at  Estry,  near  Sandwich, 
Kent,  in  1294.     The  protagonists  were  personages  of  the  first  rank,  the 

'  State  Trials  of  Edward  I  (1906),  p.  *  The  venue  was  in  the  neighbouring 

xxxviii.  county  of  Hants.     Stale  Trials,  App.  ii, 

•  Printed  Wocton,  an  obvious  misread-  pp.  198,  199. 
ing  easily  intelligible  to  the  paUcographcr. 


INTRODUCTION  U 

plaintiff  being,  on  his  mother's  side,  the  king's  uncle  and  the  bishop  chan- 
cellor of  the  exchequer.  At  first  sight,  too,  the  conflict  of  jurisdictions 
threatened  a  serious  collision  between  church  and  state.  The  bailiff  of 
Valence's  manor  of  Inkberrow,  Worcestershire,  having  with  the  assistance 
of  others  arrested  a  robber,  the  bishop  demanded  the  surrender  of  the 
prisoner  on  the  ground  that  he  had  been  taken  within  the  liberty  of  the 
bishop's  Hundred  of  Oswaldslow.  Upon  refusal  by  the  bailiff,  the  bishop 
with  that  surprising  levity  which  is  peculiarly  medieval,  attempted  to 
enforce  his  temporal  claims  by  the  spiritual  thunders  of  the  church,  and 
excommunicated  the  captors.  The  excommunication  was  issued  on  29th 
July,  following  hard  upon  an  inquisition  held  by  the  bishop  at  Hartlebury 
on  the  previous  day.  The  crown  at  once  resented  the  vindication  of 
temporal  jurisdiction  by  spiritual  censures  as  an  invasion  of  its  prerogative. 
In  little  more  than  a  fortnight  a  royal  prohibition  was  served  upon  the 
bishop,  while  Valence's  bailiff  appealed  to  the  Court  of  Arches  for  relief 
from  the  excommunication.  The  Court  of  Arches,  before  which  the  case 
came  in  November,  appears  to  have  regarded  the  dispute  as  one  affecting 
temporal  jurisdiction,  which  it  was,  and  annulled  the  excommunication. 
Upon  the  point  of  jurisdiction  the  bishop  thought  it  wise  to  tender  his  sub- 
mission. The  council,  in  the  proceedings  of  which  the  king  is  stated  to 
have  taken  part,  heard  the  case  in  the  following  Januaiy.  It  emphasized  as 
the  bishop's  capital  offence  his  invocation  of  the  spiritual  power.  For  this 
affront  to  the  crown  the  king's  attorney  claimed  a  penalty  of  ten  thousand 
marks,  besides  compensation  to  William  of  Valence  and  his  bailiff.  Final 
judgment  on  these  minor  points  was  reserved  till  the  following  Easter. 

CITIZENS  OF  LONDON  v.  BISHOP  OF  BATH 

1295  The  petitions  of  the  citizens  of  London  complaining  of  the  acts  of 
William  de  la  Marche,  the  late  treasurer  of  the  exchequer,  form  a  contribu- 
tion to  the  history  of  the  city  at  a  critical  period.  The  events  here  described 
relate  to  the  years  between  1285  and  1298,  when  after  a  suspension  of  its 
charters  the  city  was  said  to  be  in  the  king's  hand.  Just  as  had  happened 
on  similar  occasions  before,  most  notably  between  1265  and  1270,  and  again 
in  1273,  a  warden  (custos)  was  appointed  by  the  king  in  place  of  the  mayor, 
and,  it  might  be,  king's  bailiffs  were  set  up  instead  of  the  local  sheriffs. 
Under  these  conditions  the  fiscal  administration,  and  therefore  to  a  con- 
siderable extent  the  practical  control  of  the  city,  devolved  upon  the  king's 
treasurer*  and  the  officials  of  the  exchequer  who  are  now  attacked.  In  a 
way  the  petitions  remind  us  of  the  state  trials  held  in  1290,^  when  the 

'  It  was  John  of  Kirkby  the  former      into  the  king's  hand.    Ann.  London.  (Rolls 
treasurer  who  was  said  to  have  taken  the      Ser.),  94. 

mayoralty  and  the  Uberties  of  the  city  '  Slate  Trials  of  Edward  I  (Roy.  Hist. 

See,  Camden  Ser.). 


lii  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

people  were  asked  to  make  any  complaints  that  they  might  have  against 
the  conduct  of  the  king's  officers.  In  the  trials  of  that  day,  involving  many 
judges  and  other  ministers,  only  one  officer  of  the  exchequer  was  accused. 
The  present  petitions  on  the  contrary  bear  wholly  upon  the  conduct  of  the 
treasurer  and  the  administration  of  the  exchequer.  Although  we  are  not 
told,  it  is  probable  that  on  this  occasion  the  citizens  were  invited  to  make 
their  complaints,  and  that  an  mtimation  was  given  that  their  petitions 
would  be  heard.  With  reference  to  the  trials  just  mentioned  a  proclama- 
tion to  this  effect  had  been  issued  in  1289,'  and  again  in  1307  Edward  II 
encouraged  the  people  to  make  their  complaints  against  the  deposed 
treasurer  Walter  of  Langton,*  directing  that  their  petitions  should  be  put 
into  writing  and  delivered  to  a  clerk  especially  deputed  to  receive  them. 
Some  such  method,  we  can  see,  was  followed  in  the  compilation  of  the 
present  record,  which  consists  of  as  many  as  fourteen  separate  bills  that 
have  been  brought  together  and  transcribed  by  one  or  two  clerks  in  a 
single  roll.  The  work  was  not  quite  finished,  for  according  to  the  clerks' 
note  at  the  end  one  of  the  bills  is  lacking,  and  elsewhere  in  the  parchment 
spaces  have  been  left  imfilled.  There  is  still  another  petition  of  complaint 
against  the  ex-treasurer,  which  found  its  way  into  the  Rolls  of  Parliament.' 
The  engrossment  of  the  petitions  leaves  no  doubt  that  there  was  an  in- 
tention of  giving  them  formal  consideration,  but  any  hopes  that  may  have 
been  raised  of  a  new  series  of  state  trials  were  doomed  to  disappointment. 
Whether  because  more  urgent  business  took  up  the  attention  of  the  council, 
or  because  a  reform  in  the  methods  of  the  exchequer  was  not  desired,  the 
petitions  of  the  citizens  were  never  given  an  answer.  We  should  like  to 
have  had  judgments  upon  the  charges,  but  even  as  they  stand  they  are 
not  lacking  in  value  for  voicing  the  prevailing  opinion  of  the  Londoners, 
especially  when  the  abuses  mentioned  arc  corroborated  from  other  sources. 
As  to  the  complaints  in  particular,  the  first  charge  of  the  citizens  is  that 
they  had  been  in  certain  cases  impleaded  outside  the  walls  of  the  city,  con- 
trary to  one  of  their  best  established  liberties.  This  was  a  right  that  even 
under  a  suspension  of  the  charters  they  were  still  recognized  as  holding. 
By  the  letters  of  his  appointment  the  warden  had  been  commanded  "  to 
guard  and  govern  the  citizens  according  to  their  customs  and  liberties." 
This  duty,  as  the  citizens  themselves  acknowledge,  the  warden  performed 
in  challenging  the  act  of  the  treasurer  who  was  alleged  to  have  impleaded 
Osborn  le  Leuer  for  Ids  free  tenement  outside  the  city.  There  arc  many 
evidences  that  the  government  took  particular  care  not  to  offend  the 
citizens  on  this  point.  Now  the  allegation  of  Osborn  le  Leuer  that  he  was 
thus  impleaded  is  open  to  doubt  in  the  light  of  a  record  of  this  same  plea 
in  the  Letter-books.'    It  there  appears  that  in  1292  Osborn  was  the  plain- 

»  Cal.  Close  Rolls,  17  Ed.  I,  55.  '  Petition  of  Geoffrey  Say,  Rol.  Pari,  i, 

*  H.   T.   Riley,   Memorials  of  London      467. 
(1868),  i,  63.  •  Cal.  Letter-books  (Ed.  Sharpe),  C  9, 

0  74. 


INTRODUCTION  lui 

tiff  against  William  de  la  Marche  as  Dean  of  St.  Martin's,  who  as  an 
officer  of  the  exchequer  claimed  that  he  could  not  be  impleaded  outside  of 
the  exchequer.  And  so  by  the  king's  command  the  case  was  given  to  the 
treasurer  and  barons  of  the  exchequer,  wherein,  it  is  true,  William  de  la 
Marche  was  in  the  anomalous  position  of  being  both  judge  and  party. 
Thus  we  arc  confirmed  in  the  suspicion  that  some  of  the  charges  were 
overdrawn  and  recklessly  made. 

It  was  not  the  king's  intention  to  supersede  the  local  courts,  but  to 
permit  them  to  continue  imdcr  their  customary  form.  The  mayor's  court 
appears  to  have  been  taken  over  by  the  warden,^  the  court  of  Husting  was 
assembled  in  the  Gildhall  on  Monday  and  Tuesday  of  each  week,^  and  the 
court  of  the  sheriffs '  was  wont  to  be  held  under  the  presidency  of  one 
sheriff  in  alternation  with  the  other.  The  particular  complaint  against 
the  existmg  regime  is  that  the  business  of  these  courts  had  been  largely 
drawn  away  from  them.  This  happened  in  two  ways.  First  there  were 
the  judicial  commissions,  which  it  was  the  king's  plan  to  extend  into  the 
city  without  hindrance.  It  was  over  this  issue  indeed  that  the  liberties  of 
the  city  had  been  suspended  in  the  first  place.  After  a  series  of  riots  and 
flagrant  cases  of  gaol  breaking  in  1285,  Edward  sent  forth  a  commission  to 
hold  inquisitions  in  the  Tower,  and  when  the  mayor  and  aldermen  dis- 
puted the  right  of  the  commission  to  hale  the  citizens  before  them  except 
after  forty  days'  warning,  the  king  seized  upon  the  pretext  for  taking  over 
the  mayoralty.'"  Henceforth  commissions  of  oyer  and  terminer,  gaol 
deliverj^  and  the  hke  were  issued  with  frequency.  The  king  did  not  fail  to 
recognize  the  ability  of  the  Londoners  in  appointing  them  to  his  commis- 
sions, and  endeavoured  to  make  these  serve  the  interests  of  the  city.  A 
commission  in  1290  was  empowered  to  hear  all  pleas  which  the  people 
might  desire  to  bring  against  the  king's  bailiffs  and  ministers."  But  what 
the  citizens  resented  the  most,  according  to  their  fifth  petition  (p.  10),  was 
the  drawing  of  pleas  of  all  kinds  into  the  exchequer.  To  obviate  the  neces- 
sity of  impleading  the  citizens  beyond  the  walls,  the  exchequer  was  re- 
moved in  1289  from  Westminster  to  the  Husting,'^  where  it  was  held  more 
or  less  of  the  time  that  the  city  was  in  hand.  Now  the  tendency  of  the 
exchequer  to  expand  its  function  in  the  direction  of  hearing  pleas  had  long 
been  noticed  and  attempts  had  been  made  to  check  it.  The  Statute  of 
Rhuddlan,  12  Edw.  I,  declared  that  pleas  should  be  held  in  the  exchequer 
only  in  such  matters  as  especially  concern  the  king  and  the  officers  of  the 
exchequer.     In  spite  of  tliis  and  other  similar  acts  the  restrictions  were 

'  There  is  the  following  mention  of  the  '"  Ann.  London.  93. 

warden's  court  in  21  Ed.   I.     Allocatur  "  Cal.  Pal.  Rolls,  pp.  397,  etc. 

custodiLondon'cognitioplacitijuxtacartas  "  By   an   ordinance   cited   in    Madox, 

regis  Henrici  patris  regis.    Abb.  Plac.  289.  Hist,  of  Exch.  (2nd  ed.),  ii,  9.    It  was  not 

'  Cal.  Wills  in  the  Court  of  Husting  (ed.  here  all  the  time,  for  it  is  mentioned  as 

Sharpe,  1889),  Introd.  sitting    at    Westminster    in    1292.      Cal. 

•  ROey,  Memorials,  i,  27,  29.  Letter-books,  C  9. 


liv  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

either  ignored  or  evaded  by  legal  fictions.  In  some  of  the  examples  before 
us,  we  can  see  the  pretexts  upon  which  these  actions  were  taken.  John 
Bone  (p.  17)  had  made  a  recognizance  on  record  in  the  exchequer  of  his 
debt  to  Adam  of  Stratton.  After  Stratton  had  been  convicted  of  crime 
and  his  property  confiscated,  all  debts  due  to  him  fell  to  the  crown,  and 
Bone  was  called  before  the  treasurer  to  answer  for  the  debt.  Again  Ralph 
Sansauver  (p.  16)  was  bound  by  certain  covenants  of  military  service  to 
William  of  Brewes;  presumably  Brewes  was  under  obligations  of  military 
service  to  the  king,  so  that  the  exchequer  was  induced  to  enforce  a  debt 
due  to  a  debtor  of  the  king.  In  the  case  of  Roger  Paw  (p.  13)  it  is  alleged 
that  a  merchant  whose  wool  had  been  confiscated  by  the  king  straightway 
sued  his  agents  for  the  money  spent  in  purchasing  it.  A  reason  for  the 
distrust  of  the  exchequer  in  this  regard  is  expressed  in  the  fifth  petition, 
that  the  actions  "  are  commenced  by  bill  and  not  by  writ  of  the  king."  A 
court  that  proceeded  only  by  writ  was  imder  the  control  of  the  common 
law,  but  a  court  that  could  proceed  upon  a  suitor's  petition  was  under  no 
such  restraint.  This  was  the  kind  of  authority  that  was  granted  to  the 
itinerant  justices,  not  in  all  cases  but  at  least  in  cases  of  very  poor  people." 
It  was  an  authority  later  grasped  by  the  chancellor,  and  was  always  the 
distinctive  power  of  the  king's  council.  But  no  such  position  was  con- 
ceded to  belong  to  the  exchequer.  There  was  a  prolonged  struggle  before 
the  exchequer  was  forced  to  release  its  hold  upon  pleas  belonging  to  the 
common  law.'*  In  the  Ordinances  5  Ed.  II,  c.  25,  it  was  declared  that 
pleas  in  the  exchequer  should  be  limited  to  those  affecting  the  king  and 
the  officers  of  the  exchequer,  their  attendants,  and  servants,  and  any 
parties  wrongly  impleaded  might  have  recovery  in  parliament. 

The  reason  for  suitors  desiring  to  collect  their  debts  through  processes 
of  the  exchequer  is  seen  especially  in  its  free  use  of  the  power  of  distraint. 
No  complaint  of  the  time  is  more  often  repeated  than  that  against  exces- 
sive distraints,  by  which  for  a  petty  debt  to  the  king  or  another  a  party 
might  in  a  moment  be  deprived  of  all  or  much  of  his  property.  Thus  ac- 
cording to  the  allegation  of  John  of  Gisors  (p.  9),  because  he  was  unwill- 
ing to  submit  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  exchequer  over  a  free  tenement  in 
the  city,  he  was  by  this  means  forced  to  make  peace  with  his  opponent. 
The  citizens  of  London  argued  that  since  it  was  one  of  their  liberties  to 
deraign  themselves  in  pleas  of  the  crown,  so  they  should  be  permitted  to 
clear  themselves  of  distraints  issuing  from  the  exchequer.  To  check  the 
abuse  there  were  many  acts  of  legislation  like  the  following:  On  producing 
a  tally  of  payment,  distress  shall  cease;  distress  shall  be  reasonable  after 
the  value  of  the  debt,  not  outrageous;  distress  for  the  king's  debts  shall 
not  be  made  up  of  beasts  of  the  plow,  so  long  as  one  may  find  other,  and 

"  Bolland,  BilU  in  Eyre  (Selden  Soc,  "  A  significant  extract  from  the  Plea 

1914).  Roll,  33  Ed.   I,   is  given  in   The  King's 

Council,  p.  219. 


INTRODUCTION  Iv 

over-great  distress  shall  not  be  taken;  if  a  debtor  can  find  surety  until  a 
day  before  the  time  limited,  the  distress  shall  be  released  in  the  meantime.'* 

Other  charges,  that  touch  upon  the  recognized  abuses  of  the  exchequer, 
need  merely  be  mentioned.  A  man  is  held  to  accoimt  for  what  he  is  not 
legally  an  accountant  (Pier  of  Tadcaster  and  Pier  Jacob,  p.  10) ;  there  is 
faUure  to  give  acquittance  or  allowance  for  actual  expenditures  (Henry 
le  Bole,  p.  11);  the  treasurer  and  barons  are  sometimes  too  busy  to  receive 
accounts  (Pier  Jacob,  p.  11);  the  property  of  wards  was  exploited  and  ex- 
cessive relief  demanded  (John  of  Erley,  p.  14);  imprisonment  for  debt 
might  go  on  indefinitely,  sometimes  for  personal  vengeance  (Gerard 
Mauhan,  p.  15);  purveyance  of  horses,  armour,  beer  and  other  articles 
without  compensation  was  only  a  form  of  confiscation  (William  of  Here- 
ford, p.  16,  Richard  the  Brewer,  p.  17,  etc.).  In  all  these  charges  against 
Wilham  de  la  Marche  it  is  noticeable  that  in  only  one  case  is  he  accused  of 
taking  things  for  his  own  use  (WilUam  Savage,  p.  15). 

As  to  the  revenues,  it  was  understood  that  the  suspension  of  civic 
liberties  was  an  opportunity  for  special  fines  and  taxes  levied  directly  upon 
the  people.  "  It  is  an  evil  thing,"  a  chronicler  exclaims,  "  to  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  king.  So  beware ! "  '*  In  the  king's  desperate  straits  for  money, 
the  merits  of  the  system  depended  upon  his  success  in  thus  enlarging  his 
revenues.  He  met  with  practical  difficulties  however  in  collecting  the 
sums  demanded.  On  his  return  from  Gascony  in  1289,  there  was  a  present 
of  £1000  which  the  citizens  offered  by  way  of  curtesy.  The  money  was 
to  be  levied  by  poU,  but  many  of  the  inhabitants  were  reported  to  be  so 
poor  that  they  could  only  give  pledges  for  future  payment,  and  these  pledges 
were  afterwards  sold  for  what  they  would  fetch."  When  Edward  came  to 
London  again  in  1290,  the  sum  had  shrunk  to  1000  marks.  The  ingenuity 
of  the  treasurer  brought  forth  a  claim  to  £1000  of  a  debt  in  arrear  from  the 
reign  of  King  John.  The  fine  of  20,000  marks  here  mentioned  held  over 
from  the  reign  of  Henry  III  **  and  was  being  paid  in  driblets  from  time  to 
time.  In  1291  the  conmion  council  proposed  to  borrow  20  s.  from  the 
wealthy  in  each  ward,  to  present  to  the  king  and  council,  with  a  view  to 
the  recovery  of  the  city's  franchises  and  in  respect  of  the  account  of  the 
20,000  marks.  In  1292  the  sum  of  £383  8  s.  5  d.  was  allowed.'^  At  this 
rate  a  large  part  of  the  sum  remained  unsatisfied  in  1302,  when  the  king 
commuted  it  for  £1000.^  In  1294  money  must  be  had  for  the  war  with 
France,  and  £2000  foimd  in  St.  Paul's  Church  was  appropriated .^^  But 
the  ferm  of  £400  a  year,  the  citizens  tell  us,  was  raised  with  difficulty  be- 
cause the  sources  from  which  it  was  derived  had  diminished.    Customs  on 

"  Stat.  West.  1st,  c.  32;  Slat.  Marlherg.  "  Chrrni.  Ed.  I  and  Ed.  II  (Rolls  Ser.), 

c.  1;    Artie,  super  Cart.,  28  Ed.  I,  c.  12;  i,  98. 

Statutes  of  the  Realm,  i,  97;    Rot.  Pari.  "  Ann.  London,     p.  70. 

i,  35,  79;  Britton  (Ed.  F.   M.  Nichols),  "  Cal.  Letter-books,  C  4,  7,  etc. 

i,  89.                                 •  '»  Cal.  Pat.  Rolh,  30  Ed.  I,  p.  74. 

"  Ann.  London,     p.  70.  ='  Ann.  Dunst.    (Rolls  Ser.),  iii,  390. 


Ivi  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

merchandise  had  fallen  off  because  of  the  war  with  France.  No  regular 
incomes  were  offered  as  a  substitute,  except  fines  and  donations.  The 
king's  government  of  the  city  had  its  merits,  but  finance  was  its  weakness. 
The  aldennen  and  merchants,  upon  whom  the  success  of  the  sj'stem  de- 
pended, were  against  it,  and,  as  their  joint  petition  suggests  (p.  10),  were 
assiduous  in  demanding  the  restoration  of  their  franchised  estate. 

The  first  sign  of  failure  came  with  the  dismissal  of  the  treasurer.  Al- 
ready in  1294  there  was  an  expression  of  royal  displeasure  in  a  reprimand 
administered  to  the  treasurer  for  not  obeying  an  order  of  the  king  to  per- 
mit a  widow  to  have  the  goods  and  chattels  of  her  husband  for  forty  days, 
as  she  should  by  law  and  custom."^  It  is  commonly  said  that  his  fall  was 
occasioned  by  the  extreme  measures  taken  in  collecting  the  subsidies  of 
1294.  Archbishop  Winchelsca  complained  of  his  sacrilege  in  seizing  treas- 
ure of  the  churches,  and  the  king  answered  that  he  had  not  ordered  it 
but  the  treasurer  had  done  it  of  his  own  motion.-'  This  may  have  been 
the  immediate  occasion,^''  but  the  disaffection  of  the  citizens  of  London 
bringing  about  the  failure  of  one  of  the  kmg's  best  calculated  plans  must 
be  reckoned  as  one  of  the  contributory  causes.  The  minister  paid  a  large 
sum  of  money  to  win  back  the  royal  favour,  but  though  he  was  permitted 
to  hold  his  bishopric  and  to  attend  parliament  as  a  lord  spiritual,  he  was 
never  again  entrusted  with  public  office  or  asked  to  serve  on  a  commission. 
The  dearest  wish  of  the  Londoners  that  the  king  would  restore  to  them 
their  franchises  was  not  inmicdiatcly  granted.  For  three  years  more 
Edward  continued  his  experiment  of  holding  the  city  under  a  warden  but 
with  the  restlessness  of  the  citizens  and  new  manifestations  of  disaffection 
■on  the  part  of  the  aldermen,  the  experiment  was  at  length  given  up.  In 
1298  in  return  for  a  gift  of  2000  marks  the  king  restored  the  mayoralty  and 
all  liberties  of  the  city  as  freelj'  and  entirely  as  they  had  been  on  the  day 
of  his  taking  them  away.^' 

THE  BISHOP  OF  SABINA  v.  BEDEWYNDE 

1307  The  suit  of  the  Bishop  of  Sabina  v.  Bedeinjnde,^  testing  the  claims  of  a 
papal  provisor,  throws  Ught  on  a  subject  that  has  not  been  sufficiently  in- 
vestigated. There  are  the  helpful  works  of  Haller,^  Baier,'  and  Mollat,* 
but  these  are  concerned  with  the  problem  of  provisions  as  found  on  the 
Continent  rather  than  in  England.   Stubbs  has  a  section  which  deals  almost 

"  Col.  CI.  Rolls,  22  Ed.  I,  p.  368.  '  In  the  treatment  of  this  subject  I  have 

*»  Rishanger  (Rolls  Scr.),  473.  been  given  much  as.sistance  by  Professor 

"  The  date  of  his  removal  is  not  known,  W.  E.  Lunt  of  Ilavcrford  College. 

but   it   must   have   been   prior   to   these  '  J.  UaWcr,  I'apsUumundKirchenreform 

petitions  in  August.     Ills  successor  was  (1903). 

appointed  28  Sept.     Cal.  Pat.,  23  Ed.  I,  '  U.  Baier,  Papslliche  Provisumen  bis 

p.  149.  zum  Jahrc  ISO.',  (1911). 

»  Birch,  Hist.  Charters,  p.  43.  *  G.     Mollat,     Lcs    Papes    d'Aiignon 

(1912). 


INTRODUCTION  Ivii 

entirely  with  bishoprics,'  whereas  the  principal  part  of  the  problem  lies 
with  a  multitude  of  minor  places  in  the  church.  How  many  of  these  were 
involved  at  any  time,  we  have  little  statistical  information.  Can  we  rightly 
estimate  the  number  from  the  demand  of  Pope  Gregory  IX,  as  reported  by 
Matthew  of  Paris,  that  he  should  have  the  disposal  of  as  many  as  300 
benefices  in  England  ?  *  Are  we  to  take  at  its  face  value  the  complaint  of 
the  barons  made  at  the  first  council  of  Lyons,  that  Italians  were  holding 
benefices  in  the  country  to  the  value  of  60,000  marks  a  year?^  Or  is  the 
promise  of  Innocent  IV  that  he  would  confer  no  more  than  twelve  benefices 
in  England,'  a  better  guide  to  the  practical  extent  of  the  problem  ?  But 
it  is  not  the  extent  of  papal  provisions  so  much  as  the  nature  of  the  rights 
in  dispute,  bringing  about  a  conflict  of  church  and  state,  that  is  now  sug- 
gested for  consideration. 

Out  of  the  mass  of  correspondence  that  passed  between  England  and 
Rome  during  the  thirteenth  century,  it  is  not  always  easy  to  discover  the 
groimds  upon  which  the  papacj'  based  its  claims  in  the  matter  of  provisions. 
For  in  most  cases  the  pope  advanced  no  positive  claim  to  a  benefice  but 
preferably  requested  it  for  his  own  nominee,  urging  his  need  of  support  and 
appealing  to  a  sense  of  duty,  sometimes  threatening  those  who  opposed 
him.  That  is,  the  papal  rights  were  extended  by  moral  and  political  pres- 
sure more  than  by  legal  right.  But  out  of  the  manifold  contentions,  there 
emerge  the  following  guiding  principles. 

1.  The  power  of  the  pope,  and  therefore  the  peculiar  problem  of  pro- 
visions, pertained  only  to  benefices  in  the  gift  of  the  clergy.  Gregory  IX 
acknowledged  this  in  a  letter  in  1239  to  the  English  barons,  whereby  he 
confirmed  the  rights  of  lay  patrons  to  their  benefices,  at  the  same  tune  re- 
voking a  provision  that  he  had  made  affecting  a  lay  patron.'  It  is  not  clear 
whether  this  limitation  was  a  voluntary  act  on  the  part  of  the  pope,  and 
therefore  of  canonical  validity,  or  whether  it  was  a  concession  of  the 
moment  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  barons.  At  all  events,  the  restriction 
was  recognized,  if  not  by  canon  law,  certainly  in  the  courts  of  common  law 
and  in  general  was  practically  operative.'"  Even  within  these  limits,  as 
the  cases  before  us  will  show,  the  interests  of  lay  patrons  were  seriouslj^ 
affected,  so  that  it  was  the  barons  more  than  the  clergy  who  opposed  the 
papal  demands. 

2.  The  death  of  an  incumbent  in  the  curia  at  Rome,  possibly  of  a  pilgrim 
on  the  way  to  Rome,  left  his  benefice  to  be  filled  by  the  pope  and  the  pope 

'  Const.  Hist,  iii,  §  384.  nostra  conferantur.    Matthew  Paris  (Rolls 

»  Matthew  Paris,  Chron.  itiai.    (Rolls  Ser.),  iii,  613;   Potthast,  Regesla,  §  10835. 

Ser.),  iv,  32.  '°  A  parson,  it  is  here  pointed  out,  might 

'  Ibid,  iv,  441-44.  be  in  one  of  three  ways,  presentation,  col- 

'  Ibid.  518;   Burton,  iii,  169.  lation  or  provision;   in  this  case  it  was 

'  Intentionis   nostrae    non   fuerit   nee  "  not  by  provision,  for  they  are  lay  pa- 

existat,  ut  beneficia  in  regno  Angliae  con-  trons."     Year  Books  (Selden  Soc.)  4-5  Ed. 

stituta,   quae   ad  praesentationem   perti-  II,  §  57. 

nent  saecularium  patronorum,  auctoritate 


Iviii  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

alone.  This  was  afiirmed  by  a  decretal  in  1265,  which  sanctioned  it  as  an 
ancient  custom  of  the  church.''  The  claim  was  extended  by  Boniface  VIII 
to  include  benefices  voided  at  the  apostolic  see,  whether  by  death  or  any 
other  cause.'-  It  was  the  claim  most  frequently  asserted  by  Boniface  VIII, 
who  applied  it  in  thirty-nine  cases,  including  that  to  the  treasurership  of 
York,  which  will  presently  be  argued. 

3.  The  incumbency  of  a  curial,  that  is,  an  officer  of  the  papal  court,  was 
also  put  forward  as  ground  for  a  reservation  and  the  provision  of  the  next 
incumbent.'^  This  claim  was  energetically  resisted  in  England,  to  the 
effect  that  on  more  than  one  occasion  promise  was  given  that  an  Italian 
should  not  succeed  an  Italian  to  any  benefice.  But  since  a  curial  was 
likely  to  die  at  Rome,  it  was  easy  to  provide  one  Italian  after  another  to 
the  same  benefice  indefinitely,  basing  the  right  to  do  so  on  other  ground. 

4.  The  promotion  of  a  clerk  often  left  the  voided  benefice  to  be  pro- 
vided to  by  the  pope.  This  was  based  on  the  argument  that  in  the  transla- 
tion of  bishops,  a  practice  of  recent  growth,  only  papal  authority  could 
loose  the  tie  that  bound  one  to  the  church  of  his  consecration.'"'  It  was 
then  the  duty  and  privilege  of  the  pope  not  to  leave  the  divorced  church 
unconsoled.  Likewise  in  regard  to  lesser  officers,  if  the  pope  was  concerned 
in  their  promotion,  there  was  ground  for  a  provision  to  the  vacated  bene- 
fice.'* 

5.  Also  the  resignation  of  a  clerk,  giving  up  his  benefice  spontaneously 
into  the  hands  of  the  pope,  was  the  occasion  of  a  provision  for  filling  it.  It 
is  obvious  how  the  right  of  a  lay  patron  might  be  thus  superseded.  More- 
over a  lay  patron  might  in  the  same  manner  cede  his  right  of  advowson  over 
to  the  pope.'* 

It  will  readily  be  seen  that,  in  spite  of  all  theories  to  the  contrary,  the 
rights  of  the  king,  the  greatest  of  lay  patrons,  were  sure  to  be  affected  by 
the  policy  just  outlined.  For  during  the  time  of  a  vacancy  of  a  bishopric 
or  any  church  of  his  advowson,  whenever  in  fact  the  temporaUties  of  a 
church  were  taken  in  hand,  the  profits  of  such  benefices  were  enjoyed  by 
the  king.  This  right,  known  in  France  as  the  regale,  was  designated  in 
England  as  part  of  "  the  dignity  of  the  crown  and  the  royal  inheritance." 
A  feature  of  this  prerogative  which  has  never  been  fully  explained,  is  how 
the  king  in  England,  different  from  princes  of  other  countries,  came  to 
assume  the  collations  pertaining  to  the  benefices  which  were  for  the  moment 
in  his  hand.    For  the  collation  was  not  necessarily  part  of  the  temporaUties; 

"  Bcneficia    vacantia    in    curia    alius  visioni  ejusdem  reservat.     Potthast,  Re- 

quam  Papa  confcrrc  non  potest;    quod  si  gesta,  §24089;    Boehmer,  Corpus,  ii,  1150; 

fecerit,  irrata  est  collatio.     Sexto  Deer.  Kichter,  Corpus,  ii,  1170. 

iii,  tit.  4,   c.  2  in  Friedburg,  Corpus,  ii,  "  Baier,  op.  cit.  138;   Potthast,  §  4758. 

1021.  "  Stubbs  (5th  ed.),  iii,  310. 

"  Cum    beneficia    ecclesiastica,     quae  "  Matthew  Paris,  iv,  287. 

apud  sedem  apostolicam  vacare  noscuntur,  "  e.  g.   the  Earl  of  Surrey  mentioned 

personis  conferri  debcnt  idoncis,  ilia  pro-  below,  n.  54. 


INTRODUCTION  lix 

at  least  it  might  have  been  claimed  as  a  spiritual  function  and  then  it  would 
have  reverted  to  a  clerical  authority.  Madox,"  who  has  assembled  much 
material  on  the  rights  of  the  king  over  vacant  bishoprics,  has  said  nothing 
on  this  point.  Yet  the  power  was  well  established  in  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury. In  1234  a  case  was  heard  that  tested  the  right  of  the  crown  in  a 
question  of  this  kind.'^  The  bishop-elect  of  Hereford,  having  been  duly 
confirmed  by  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  on  the  same  day  conferred  a 
prebend  pertaining  to  the  bishopric  on  a  candidate  of  his  own  choice.  But 
the  king,  having  learned  that  the  former  holder  had  died  while  the  tem- 
poralities of  the  bishopric  were  still  in  hand,  bestowed  the  prebend  upon 
another  candidate.  The  bishop  argued  in  the  king's  court  that  he  had 
found  the  place  vacant,  and  so  he  could  and  ought  to  fill  it.  But  it  was  the 
judgment  of  the  court,  concurred  in  by  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  and 
other  bishops  in  attendance,  that  the  king's  donation  was  undoubtedly 
vaUd,  although  they  could  point  to  no  custom,  and  no  such  case  had  been 
heard  of  before."  The  case  is  important  for  setting  an  exact  precedent 
for  the  claim  afterwards  made  in  the  case  of  the  Bishop  of  Sabiyia  v.  Bede- 
wynde,  although  the  pope  was  not  then  involved  and  other  complications 
of  the  later  case  were  lacking. 

In  the  reign  of  Edward  I  the  question  of  provisors  became  a  pressing 
one,  but  there  was  lacking  at  first  any  firm  policy  in  dealing  with  it.  Be- 
tween the  alternatives  of  accepting  or  rejecting  the  papal  candidates  the 
king  seemed  to  vacillate,  according  as  he  was  moved  by  desire  of  the  friend- 
ship of  the  pope,  or  constrained  by  his  barons  to  oppose  him.  In  1290  with 
the  support  of  his  barons  Edward  sent  a  letter  to  the  pope  complaining  of 
abuses  in  the  matter  of  "  collations  and  executions"  in  the  churches  of  York 
and  Lincoln  tending  to  the  disinheritance  of  the  crown.^"  But  the  answer  of 
Nicholas  IV,  admonishing  him  not  to  invade  the  liberties  and  rights  of  the 
church,^'  was  received  without  protest.  Again  in  1295  Edward  writes  to 
Boniface  VIII,  who  has  asked  for  two  prebends  in  the  church  of  York,  that 
he  is  desirous  out  of  reverence  for  the  pope  of  carrying  the  matter  into 
effect,  so  far  as  may  be  done  without  disinheritance  of  the  crown  .^^  At  the 
same  time  the  king  is  seeking  a  reciprocal  favour  for  his  relative  Theobald 
of  Bar  bishop-elect  of  Metz.^'  But  the  king  was  capable  of  asserting  the 
rights  of  the  crown  with  greater  vigour.  During  the  vacancy  of  the  see  of 
York,  occasioned  by  the  death  of  Archbishop  Romein  in  1296,  Edward 
conferred  the  prebend  of  Masham  upon  his  clerk  John  of  Drockensford, 
who  was  inducted  and  held  possession  for  two  years.    Then  on  grounds 

"  Hist,  of  Eich.  ch.  x,  §  3.  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  458),  and  to  Amaury  de 

"  Red  Book  of  Exch.   (Rolls  Ser.),   ii,  Montfort   in    1265  for  the   same  reason 

765.  (ibid.  404). 

"  There  are  many  examples  of  the  use  '"  Fcedera,  R.  i,  740;   O.  ii,  493. 

of  this  power  subsequently,  e.  g.,  in  1256  ''  Ibid.  O.  ii,  494;    further  correspon- 

the  king  granted  to  John  Mansel  the  treas-  dence,  526,  530. 

urership  of  the  church  of  York,  then  in  «  Cal.  CI.  Rolls,  23  Ed.  I,  p.  450. 

hand  because  of  the  voidance  of  the  see  ^  Ibid.,  25  Ed.  I,  p.  97. 


Ix  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

not  clearly  explained,  John  de  Colonna  claimed  the  prebend  as  a  papal 
reservation  and  provision,  showing  a  mandate  to  the  Aixhbishop  of  Tours 
to  induct  him.^^  The  king  wrote  to  the  archbishop  of  Tours  inhibiting 
him  from  attempting  anything  of  the  kind,  and  by  further  letters  to  Rome 
asked  for  the  revocation  of  the  provision  in  question.  "  Even  if  the  king 
should  submit,"  he  said  at  last,  "  or  permit  it  to  pass,  the  magnates  of  his 
realm,  who  are  boimd  by  homage  and  fealty  to  defend  his  dignity  and 
crown,  would  not  allow  his  right  thus  to  perish."-^  The  provision  is  not 
heard  of  again.  A  similar  issue,  arising  out  of  the  claims  of  rival  candidates 
to  the  prebend  of  Stillington  in  the  diocese  of  York,  came  to  a  judicial  hear- 
ing in  1304.2*  Different  from  the  case  of  1234,  the  right  of  the  pope  was 
at  this  time  involved.  By  reason  of  the  vacancy  of  the  see  after  the  death 
of  Archbishop  Newerk  in  1299,  the  king  granted  the  prebend  of  Stillington 
and  the  chapel  of  St.  Marj-'s  to  John  Bush  a  clerk  of  the  royal  household.^' 
Almost  simultaneously  on  the  ground  of  a  voidance  of  the  prebend  created 
at  the  court  of  Rome,  Pope  Boniface  VIII  provided  it  to  his  nephew  Francis 
Gaetano,  who  apparently  held  possession  during  the  four  succeeding  years.^ 
After  a  vain  attempt  to  secure  the  pope's  favour  toward  John  Bush,  Ed- 
ward began  the  vindication  of  his  own  right  by  a  command  to  Archbishop 
Corbridge  to  admit  and  induct  the  clerk  into  the  aforesaid  benefices.  The 
archbishop  answered  that  he  could  not  and  ought  not  to  do  this  against 
the  act  of  the  pope,  whereupon  the  king  called  him  by  writ  quare  non  ad- 
misit  to  answer  for  contempt  before  his  justices.  Since  there  was  no  one 
who  dared  to  act  as  his  attorney,  the  archbishop  answered  in  person,  re- 
peating what  he  had  said  before  that  the  act  was  an  act  of  the  pope.  The 
court  pronounced  hun  undefended  and  seized  the  temporahties  of  the  see 
into  the  king's  hand.  Sad  and  worn  the  archbishop  departed  and  died 
soon  after.  The  same  process  was  then  begun  against  the  dean  and  chapter, 
who  in  fear  of  the  king's  wrath  admitted  the  clerk  to  the  chapel  but  held 
the  prebend  in  suspense.  By  dint  of  letters  inhibiting  Francis  Gaetano 
from  attempting  anything  to  the  injury  of  the  crown,  and  by  prohibiting 
John  Bush  from  answering  a  citation  from  Rome,^^  the  clerk  was  main- 
tained in  possession  of  the  prebend  of  Stillington  until  1310,  and  of  the 
chapel  until  1316.  In  this  case,  although  the  rights  of  the  pope  were  in 
question,  the  contention  was  carried  on  not  by  the  pope  but  by  the  arch- 
bishop. Moreover  it  was  tried  not  before  the  council  but  before  the 
justices  by  a  process  of  common  law. 

The  next  case,  the  Bishop  of  Sabina  v.  Bedewyndc,  was  initiated  in  flie 
Parliament  of  Carlisle,  which  met  in  January,  1307.  Here  the  strongest 
sentiments  against  the  papal  policy  heard  for  a  generation  were  boldly 

"  Ibid,  2(1  Ed.  I,  p.  223,  also  p.  292.  "  Cal.  Pat.  Ilolh,  p.  512. 

"  Il.id,  27  Ed.  I,  p.  309.  "  I^  Neve,  Fasli,  iii,  212. 

"  Given  at  length  in  W.  Hemingburgh  "  Cal.  CI.  Rolls,  34  Ed.  I,  p.  472;  Cal. 

{Eng.  Hist.  Soc),  ii,  233-34;     also  Abb.  /'o/.,  32  Ed.  I,  p.  227;  Cal.  CI.  liolls,  4  Ed. 

Ploc.  251.  II,  p.  340;  Cal  Pap.  iMlers,  ii,  3. 


INTRODUCTION  Ixi 

expressed.  The  principal  grievance  was  annates,  but  there  was  also  com- 
plaint of  provisions.  Fearful  of  the  tendency  to  encroach  upon  their  rights 
of  advowson,  laymen  joined  with  the  clergy  in  a  protest,  that "  by  the  un- 
bridled multitude  of  provisions  the  collation  of  benefices  pertaining  of 
right  to  the  ordinaries  is  taken  away  from  them,  and  at  length  the  poor 
nobles  and  learned  men  are  excluded  from  ecclesiastical  promotion."  '"  The 
ensuing  Statute  of  Carlisle,  although  it  failed  to  state  any  rule  in  regard  to 
provisors,  laid  down  a  principle  that  has  been  since  reiterated,  that  the 
churches  of  England  had  been  founded  by  the  king  and  his  progenitors, 
and  by  the  nobles  and  their  ancestors,  who  had  given  their  lands  for  the 
support  of  religion,  and  to  them  the  patronage  of  such  churches  naturally 
belonged.^'  For  a  specific  statement  on  provisions  we  look  not  to  any  act 
of  legislation  but  to  the  case  before  us  concerning  the  treasurership  of  York. 

Now  the  church  of  St.  Peter's,  York,  more  than  any  other  church  in 
England  had  been  thrown  into  the  hands  of  papal  provisors.  Since  1296, 
when  the  dean  Henry  of  Newerk  was  promoted  to  be  archbishop,  the 
deanery  was  disputed  between  Cardinal  Francis  Gaetano  a  papal  provisor 
and  William  Hamilton  the  choice  of  the  chapter.^^  But  on  this  question 
the  pope  in  the  end  gave  way.  It  was  different  with  the  treasurership, 
which  had  been  held  since  1287  by  John  of  Colonna  until  he  was  removed 
by  Boniface  VIII  in  1296.  The  voidance  of  the  treasurership  happened 
during  the  vacancy  of  the  see,  but  the  king  did  not  immediately  claim  his 
right  to  the  collation,  and  the  pope  provided  it  to  Theobald  of  Bar,  a 
relative  of  the  king  wholly  welcome  to  him.  It  was  not  until  after  Theo- 
bald had  resigned  in  1303,  and  the  pope  had  named  another  candidate, 
Francis  Gaetano,  that  the  validity  of  these  appointments  was  brought 
into  question.  On  1  November,  1306,  the  king  formally  appointed  Walter 
Bedewynde  a  clerk  of  the  exchequer  to  be  treasurer  of  York,  and  com- 
manded the  archbishop  and  chapter  to  admit  him  to  the  office.''  When 
the  archbishop  failed  to  obey,  he  was  threatened  with  being  called  to 
answer  at  the  Parliament  of  Carlisle.'''  It  is  to  be  noticed  in  this  connection 
that  the  king's  right  in  the  matter  was  asserted  before  and  not  after  the 
meeting  of  parUament. 

The  king  first  sent  the  matter  to  be  heard  by  the  council  at  Carlisle.'* 
Some  discussion  of  it  then  took  place,  as  certain  letters  dated  10  March 
give  us  to  understand,'*  but  the  full  hearing  did  not  take  place  till  after- 
wards. In  accordance  with  the  king's  writ  of  26  April,  as  our  record  shows, 
the  issue  was  fully  stated  and  argued  at  length  before  the  council  sitting 
at  London.  The  special  plea  of  the  pope's  legate  is  that  the  king  has  lost 
any  right  to  the  benefice  that  he  might  have  had  by  not  exercising  it  within 

=°  Rol.  Pari,  i,  207,  220.  ^  Cal.  CI.  Rolls,  34  Ed.  I,  p.  477. 

"  Ibid.  219;    Statutes  of  the  Realm,  i,  "  There  is  a  writ  to  this  effect  dated 

150.  18  Feb.    Rol.  Pari,  i,  218. 

'»  Le  Neve,  iii,  122.  '»  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  p.  511. 

M  Cal.  Fat.  Rolls,  p.  467. 


Lxii  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

the  time  set  by  canonical  law.  This  was  the  law  of "  lapse,"  a  canon  es- 
tablished by  the  Third  Council  of  the  Lateran  in  1179  to  the  effect  that  in 
cases  of  vacancy  appointments  shall  not  be  held  indefinitely  in  suspense; 
if  the  regular  patron  does  not  act  within  six  months,  the  bishop  of  the  dio- 
cese ma  J'  name  a  candidate;  if  he  does  not  appoint,  the  chapter  may;  and 
if  all  others  fail,  then  the  metropolitan  may  dispose  of  the  place."  Al- 
though the  pope  is  not  mentioned  in  the  canon,  it  probably  worked  in  his 
favour.  Now  Theobald  had  held  the  treasurership  for  six  years,  and  his 
successor  for  three  years  more,  before  any  right  of  the  crown  was  asserted. 
The  plea  was  therefore  an  exception  of  plenarty,  that  is,  the  place  was  filled 
and  the  possessor  should  not  be  disturbed.'*  In  the  king's  behalf  it  was 
argued  to  the  contrary  that,  however  it  might  be  with  other  patrons, 
against  the  rights  of  the  crown  "  there  is  no  lapse  nor  ought  there  to  be." 
Upon  this  ground  the  case  was  decided,  but  as  a  statement  of  law  it  was  an 
extreme  claim  for  the  rights  of  the  crown,  that  was  not  maintained  with- 
out modification  later. 

The  judgment  of  the  council,  which  was  dulj'  enrolled  and  set  forth  in 
letters  under  the  great  seal,  was  far  from  being  the  end  of  the  controversy 
over  the  treasurership  of  York,  much  less  of  the  general  question  of  pro- 
visions. In  two  or  three  passages  of  the  record  there  are  allusions  to  the 
responsibility  resting  upon  Bedewynde  of  maintaining  not  only  his  own 
right  but  the  rights  of  the  crown  —  this  he  is  admonished  he  should  do 
"  with  all  his  might."  The  sequel  shows  that  he  had  need  of  great  patience 
and  energy  in  contending  with  the  ecclesiastical  processes  that  were  im- 
mediately begun  against  him.  On  5  September,  the  pope  required  the 
archbishop  to  cite  him  for  having  despoiled  Francis  Gaetano  of  the  treas- 
urership.'' Edward  II  endeavored  to  defend  his  clerk  by  requesting  Pope 
Clement  V  not  to  carry  the  matter  further;  were  the  king  to  connive  at 
at  such  proceedings,  he  wrote,  "  his  nobles  would  not  endure  it."  *"  Still 
the  papal  processes  were  not  discontinued.  At  the  same  time  Bedewynde 
as  a  pluralist  had  need  of  a  papal  dispensation  in  order  to  retain  the  bene- 
fices that  he  was  holding  uncanonically.'"  At  one  moment  he  seemed  on 
the  point  of  yielding,  when  the  king  ordered  the  warden  of  the  Cinque  Ports 
to  arrest  Walter  Bedewynde  or  John  Bush  in  case  either  of  them  should 
attempt  to  cross  the  sea  to  answer  in  any  court  outside  the  kingdom.''^ 
Thus  for  twenty  years  Bedewynde  was  defended  by  letters  of  protection 
and  inhibition,  but  the  king  of  England  could  not  prevent  the  case  being 
taken  up  in  the  papal  court.  As  many  as  three  hearings  took  place  there, 
before  Bedewynde  died  in  1328,'"  pendente  lite. 

"  Hardouin,     Acta      Conciliorum,     vi,  "  Cal.  Pap.  Letlrrs,  ii,  28. 

1677.  "  Fadcrn,  R.  ii,  20;  O.  38. 

"  'J'he  same  plea  was  used  in  a  case  "  Cal.  I'ap.  Letters,  ii,  41,  62. 

10  Ed.  II,  touching  the  bishop  of  Norwich.  "  Cal  CI.  Rolls,  4  Ed.  II,  p.  340. 

Ahh.  I'lac.  325;    see  also  Year  Hook,  19  "  The  last  reference  to  him  aa  living  is 

Ed.  Ill,  58-64.  dated  12  Feb.  1328.    Cal.  CI.  Rolls,  p.  361. 


INTRODUCTION  Ixiii 

Even  the  death  of  Bedewyndc  was  not  the  end  of  the  controversy  over 
the  treasurership.  Apparently  the  late  treasurer  gave  up  his  office  into 
the  hand  of  the  king,  for  in  1326  Edward  II  granted  it  to  his  clerk  Robert 
Baldok''''  by  reason  of  the  voidance  of  the  archbishopric  in  the  time  of 
Edward  I."^  Edward  III  appointed  William  de  la  Mare  in  1329/«  while 
the  pope  appointed  Cardinal  Mortemart  as  a  successor  of  Francis  Gaetano." 
The  aspect  of  the  question  was  then  entirely  changed  by  the  king's  grant- 
ing the  cardinal  permission  to  prosecute  his  claim,  notwithstanding  any 
prohibition  heretofore  issued.''^  The  king's  clerk  lost  his  case  in  the  papal 
court  and  the  church  of  York  was  placed  under  an  interdict  to  enforce  the 
decree.'"  The  king  seemed  to  have  abandoned  his  claim  entirely,  when  in 
1349  he  undertook  once  more  to  grant  the  office  which  he  claimed  to  have 
recovered  in  the  court  of  common  pleas.  ^  The  pope  however  insisted  on 
a  provision,  but  was  wilUng  to  name  the  king's  candidate,  John  Winwick." 
The  king  accepted  the  provisor  on  this  basis.  Thus  a  political  advantage 
was  gained  by  a  legal  defeat.  This  brings  us  to  a  later  aspect  of  the  problem, 
in  which  the  king  often  secured  the  appointment  of  his  own  candidates  by 
means  of  papal  provisions. 

Under  the  temporizing  policy  of  Edward  II  and  Edward  III  papal  pro- 
visions were  permitted  to  increase,  but  it  is  not  true  to  say  that "  up  to  the 
year  1350  the  right  of  provision  was  exercised  without  check."  ^^  As  a 
method  of  saving  the  royal  rights,  according  to  a  form  begun  by  Edward  I, 
the  papal  candidates  were  required  to  renounce  anything  in  the  pope's 
bulls  or  letters  prejudicial  to  the  crown.  There  was  in  fact  a  series  of  con- 
flicts and  test  of  claims  in  which  it  is  true  the  king  did  not  always  win.  To 
cite  a  case  of  this  sort,  in  1327  King  Edward  III  presented  Geoffrey  Cotes 
to  the  church  of  Fishlake  in  the  diocese  of  York,"  a  collation  of  the  priory 
of  Lewes  then  in  hand.  This  appointment  was  met  by  a  provision  of  the 
same  church  to  a  curial,  Peter  Vaurelli,  on  the  ground  that  the  earl  of 
Surrey,  patron  of  Lewes,  had  ceded  his  right  to  the  pope."  This  time  the 
king  was  persuaded  to  relinquish  the  defence  of  his  candidate,  by  permitting 
Peter  to  prosecute  his  claim  in  ecclesiastical  courts.^*  In  1328  Geoffrey 
made  complaint  in  parliament  that  while  he  was  in  peaceful  possession  of 
the  church,  there  came  Peter  Vaurelli  with  bulls  from  Avignon  and  ousted 
him.^*    He  seems  to  have  secured  a  judgment  of  the  king's  court  but  he 

«  Cal.  Pal.,  19  Ed.  II,  279.    Bedewynde  "  Cal.  Pap.  Letters,  ii,  316,  344. 

however  was  still  called  treasurer  of  York  *'  Cal.  Pat.,  5  Ed.  Ill,  p.  186. 

to  the  time  of  his  death.  "  Foedera,  R.  ii,  849;   O.  iv,  541. 

"  Another  instance  in  which  Edward  '»  Cal.  Pal.,  23  Ed.  Ill,  p.  355;  25  Ed. 

Ill  claimed  an  appointment  by  virtue  of  III,  pp.  134,  179. 

a  vacancy  so  long  ago  as  the  time  of  his  "  Cal.  Pap.  Letters,  iii,  420. 

grandfather  is  given  in  I'ear  Books,  11-12  "  Stubbs  (5th  ed.)  iii,  324. 

Ed.  Ill  (Rolls  Ser.),  654.  "  Cai.Po(.,  1  Ed.  111,123;  2Ed.III,228. 

"  There  were  the  intervening  appoint-  "  Cal.  Pap.  Letters,  ii,  264,  317. 

ments   of   John   Brabazon   in    1327   and  "  Cal.  Pat.,  2  Ed.  Ill,  p.  315. 

Walter  Yarwell  in  1329.  "  Rot.  Pari,  ii,  20. 


Ixiv  CASES   BEFORE   THE  KING'S   COUNCIL 

must  needs  petition  again,  because  he  could  not  gain  possession."  He 
alleges  that  the  ecclesiastical  proceedings  had  been  taken  before  the  bishop 
of  Lincoln,  then  the  king's  chancellor,  who,  after  giving  judgment  un- 
favourably to  him  in  the  ecclesiastical  court,  had  turned  the  king's  writs 
against  him.  The  chancellor,  he  said,  even  granted  to  the  provisor  a  writ 
of  supersedeas  with  the  clause  "  notwithstanding  any  judgment  in  the 
king's  court  or  prohibitions,"  an  entkely  illegal  instrument.  After  further 
proceedings  in  the  chancery  the  petitioner  said  that  he  had  been  compelled 
under  duress  to  resign  the  church  and  suffer  the  provisor  to  have  it.  Geof- 
frej'  was  told  that  he  might  sue  before  the  council,  which  would  review  the 
record,  process,  and  judgment.  But  the  king's  presentee  never  recovered 
the  church  of  Fishlake;  on  the  contrary,  at  the  request  of  the  king  himself 
he  was  induced  to  give  it  up,  and  was  granted  instead  other  churches  with 
which  he  was  apparently'  satisfied.^* 

As  the  reign  of  Edward  III  advances,  there  is  evidence  of  more  vigour 
in  the  proceedings,  both  civil  and  criminal,  against  provisors.  The  rolls  of 
the  chancery  abound  in  commissions  to  arrest  provisors  and  all  persons 
aiding  them,  who  treat  with  contempt  the  king's  appointments,  and  to 
bring  them  before  the  chancellor,  the  comicil,  or  the  kmg's  bench.  The 
charges  are  of  contempt  toward  the  authority  of  the  crown,  and  of  making 
appeals  to  the  Roman  curia  without  license.  It  is  not  generally  known  that 
the  latter  was  a  valid  charge  at  common  law  and  was  received  by  the  king's 
courts  long  before  the  Statute  of  Praemunire  gave  it  sanction.  At  the 
same  time  these  prosecutions  often  failed  in  their  effect  because  the  king 
suspended  the  proceedings  or  sanctioned  the  ecclesiastical  processes.  On 
the  other  hand,  opposed  to  the  material  power  of  the  state,  there  was  not 
only  the  great  moral  strength  of  the  church;  often  there  was  physical 
power  of  resistance.  For  example,  in  1340  the  king,  having  presented  to 
the  church  of  Foston,  ordered  the  arrest  of  all  persons  proceeding  in  dero- 
gation of  his  right. ^^  But  a  provisor  had  entered  the  church  by  force, 
wasting  its  tithes  and  profits  and  so  threatening  the  servants  of  the  king's 
clerk,  that  they  dared  not  do  what  was  incumbent  upon  them.  Again  in 
1345,  one  of  the  king's  conmiissioners  reported  that,  after  he  had  effected 
the  arrest  of  a  papal  notary,  a  band  of  men  fell  upon  him,  assaulted  his 
servants  and  rescued  the  prisoner.^"  In  another  instance  a  provisor,  having 
held  possession  of  a  church  by  force  and  anns  against  the  king's  presentee, 
was  pardoned  and  delivered  from  prison  on  security  for  his  good  behavior, 
but  he  only  went  forth  with  the  aid  of  his  supporters  to  intrude  into  the 
church  again,  "  whereat  the  king  was  not  without  reason  disturbed."  " 
In  other  words,  provisors  were  gaining  the  support  of  the  residents  and 
anned  men  of  the  neighborhoods,  and  aggravating  the  disorders  of  the 
country. 

»'  Ibid.  45.  "  IWd.,  14  Ed.  Ill,  pp.  100,  102. 

"Cai./'a(., 4  Ed.  Ill,  pp.  491,  520,  .'543.  '"  Ibid..  19  Ed.  Ill,  p.  579.  "  Ibid.,  p.  583. 


INTRODUCTION  IxV 

Sooner  or  later  such  a  problem  at  law  was  sure  to  pass  from  petitions 
and  suits  to  acts  of  legislation.  In  1340  a  concession  was  made  to  ecclesi- 
astical interests,  when  in  regard  to  "  exception  of  plenarty,"  brought  for- 
ward in  Bedewynde's  case,  it  was  agreed  that  the  king  would  make  no 
collation  or  presentment,  whether  to  benefices  in  his  own  right  or  in  the 
right  of  another,  after  three  years  from  the  time  of  voidance.^-  It  was  the 
expressed  desire  of  the  clergy  to  restrict  the  time  still  further  to  the  six 
months  set  by  canonical  law.  Although  the  king  was  inclined  to  yield  his 
claim  in  any  given  case,  after  the  benefice  had  been  held  for  a  j-ear  or  more, 
the  statutory  restriction  was  resented  as  prejudicial  to  the  king  and  his 
heirs.  It  was  therefore  repealed,  xmder  the  promise  that  the  king's  right 
in  such  cases  should  be  well  examined."  The  stronger  current  of  legislative 
acts  ran  toward  the  limitation  of  papal  provisions.  In  1343  the  king 
frankly  warned  the  pope  that  the  nobles  and  conmions  assembled  in  parlia- 
ment would  no  longer  endure  the  injuries  caused  by  the  immense  number 
of  provisors  invading  the  kingdom."  In  1344  the  commons  asked  for 
a  statute  to  this  effect.  Unwilling  as  yet  to  concede  a  statute,  the  king 
went  so  far  as  to  issue  a  proclamation,  which  follows  in  the  main  the  lines 
already  laid  down  by  the  courts  and  traces  in  advance  some  of  the  terms 
of  the  later  statute.**  Reciting  the  preamble  of  the  Statute  of  Carlisle 
in  regard  to  the  foundation  of  churches,  it  adds  the  significant  clause: 
"  and  of  these  (ecclesiastical)  possessions  the  king  and  magnates  had 
custody  during  voidance."  Furthermore  the  proclamation  declared  the 
bringing  in  of  bulls,  letters,  processes,  etc.,  prejudicial  to  the  king  and 
the  people  to  be  a  criminal  offense  punishable  by  forfeiture.  Thus  the 
way  was  prepared  for  the  long  desired  Statute  of  Provisors  in  1351, 
which  extended  the  terms  of  the  foregoing  proclamation.  Repeating 
the  preamble  of  the  Statute  of  Carhsle,  it  declared  that  this  holdeth 
always  and  has  never  been  repealed.  As  to  collation  of  benefices  its 
main  stress  was  laid  upon  the  claims  that  had  been  set  forth  many  years 
before  in  Bedewynde's  case,  that  in  spite  of  reservations  or  provisions  by 
the  pope,  at  the  time  of  voidance,  the  king  as  well  as  other  lords  shall  en- 
joy the  collations  of  benefices  which  be  of  their  advowry.  Against  the  in- 
terference of  provisors  criminal  processes  were  strengthened,  to  the  effect 
that  all  persons  concerned  in  the  illegal  practices  were  to  be  attached  and 
held  until  further  notice,  if  convicted  they  were  to  be  imprisoned  without 
bail,  and  in  extreme  cases  outlawed.  The  closely  related  Statute  of  Prae- 
munire in  1353  added  the  statement  that  all  subjects  of  the  king  suing  in 
a  foreign  court  matters  cognizable  in  the  king's  court,  or  questioning  else- 
where the  judgments  of  the  king's  court,  shall  be  brought  before  the  king 
and  council,  or  in  his  chancery,  or  before  his  justices  to  answer.  How  ex- 
tensively the  council  was  concerned  with  these  questions  we  have  seen  from 
the  foregoing  cases. 

"  Stat.,  14  Ed.  Ill,  4th,  c.  2.  "  Fmdera,  R.  ii,  1231, 1233;  O.  v,  381, 385. 

"  The  Statute  of  Provisors,  25  Ed.  III.  "  Cal.  CI.  Rolls,  18  Ed.  Ill,  p.  356. 


kvi  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

REX  V.  GERDESTON 

1315  •'^  ^^^^  which  was  a  cause  celebre  of  the  fourteenth  century  is  for  the  first 
time,  so  far  as  is  known,  printed  at  length  here.  It  arose  out  of  an  en- 
deavour on  the  part  of  one  of  the  magnates  of  the  reahn,  John  de  Warenne, 
styled  indifferently  Earl  Warenne,  Earl  of  Surrey  or  Earl  of  Sussex,  to  obtain 
a  divorce  from  his  wife  Joan  of  Bar,  granddaughter  of  Edward  I  and  niece 
of  Edward  II,  the  reigning  sovereign.  From  the  Patent  Roll  of  1316 '  we 
learn  that  Matilda  Neirford,  whom  we  know  to  have  been  the  earl's  mis- 
tress, brought  a  suit  of  nullity  of  marriage  against  the  countess  before 
Thomas  Gerdeston,  archdeacon  of  Norfolk.  The  ground  alleged  was  a  pre- 
contract with  herself  which  by  the  canon  law  was,  under  certain  conditions, 
held  equivalent  to  a  marriage.^  Upon  such  an  alleged  contract  in  the  fol- 
lowing century  Edward  V  was  declared  illegitimate  and  deposed.'  The 
case  recorded  here  arose  upon  the  initial  step  of  the  suit,  the  citation  of  the 
countess.  By  the  Constitutions  of  the  Cardinal  Legates  Otho  and  Ottobon, 
pubhshed  in  London  in  1237,  restrictions  had  been  imposed  upon  the  clergy 
in  dealing  with  matrimonial  causes.  Only  men  of  prudence,  trustworthi- 
ness, and  legal  knowledge  were  to  handle  questions  of  such  importance. 
Deans,  archdeacons,  or  abbots,  by  privilege  or  custom  exercising  such 
jurisdiction,  might  retain  it  with  due  care  and  diligence,  but  in  any  case 
definitive  sentence  was  not  to  be  pronounced  without  prior  consultation 
with  the  bishop.*  Notwithstanding  these  restrictions,  the  persons  primarily 
here  inculpated  were  the  archdeacon's  official  and  his  deputy,  one  Robert, 
chaplain  of  Yaxley,  Norfolk,  from  which  county  the  knightly  family  of 
Neirford  sprang.  Both  by  royal  charters  and  papal  bulls,  the  palace  was 
exempt  from  ordinary  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  yet  the  chaplain  had  ven- 
tured to  cite  the  countess  in  person  when  she  was  in  attendance  upon  the 
queen  in  the  crypt  of  St.  Stephen's.  As  he  was  but  an  underling,  the  official 
and  archdeacon  himself  were  also  proceeded  against  as  responsible  for  him. 
The  offence  of  the  archdeacon  and  his  official  was  declared  by  the  king's 
attorney  punishable  with  a  fine  of  £20,000,  as  being  in  contempt  of  the  king 
and  "against  his  crown  and  dignity,"  a  form  illustrating  the  antiquity  of  the 
language  of  the  modern  indictment.  By  the  citation  the  countess  was 
summoned  to  appear  before  the  archdeacon  or  his  commissary  at  Bracke- 

'  10  Ed.  II,  m.  32.     Calendar  (1898),  tyme  after,  the  seid  King  Edward  (IV) 

p.  434,  vide  infra.  was  an  stodc  maryed  and  trouth  plight 

'  See  Pollock  and  Maitland,  Hist,  of  to  oone  Dame  Elianor  Butler,  daughter 

English  Law  (1898),   ii,  366;    also  O.  J.  of  the  old  Earl  of  Shrewesbury,  with  whom 

Reichel,  Complete  Manual  of  Canon  Law  the  same  King  Edward  had  made  a  pre- 

(1896),  i,  .349.  contracte  of  matrinionie,"  etc. 

'  See  the  "  Act  for  the  settlement  of  *  Const itutiones     Othonis     Cardinalis 

the  Crown  upon  the  king  (Richard  III)  xxiii.    Ne  causae  matrimonialea  judicibua 

and  his  issue,"  etc.  "  At  the  tyme  of  con-  impcritis     committantur.       D.     Wilkins, 

tract  of  the  same  pretensed  marriage  (with  Concilia  (1737),  i,  654. 
Elizabeth   Grey)   and   bifore    and  longe 


INTRODUCTION  Ixvii 

den,  now  known  as  Bracon  Ash,  near  Norwich.  It  does  not  appear  what 
governed  this  choice  of  place,  for  the  manor  appears  to  have  been  in  the 
family  of  Peverel;*  so  probably  the  archdeacon's  church  was  here,  where 
he  held  his  court. 

Archdeacon  Gerdeston  filed  a  defence  repudiating  responsibility  for  the 
citation.  He  knew  nothing  of  the  process,  he  alleged,  until  he  received  from 
his  diocesan,  the  bishop  of  Norwich,  notice  that  the  king  had  ordered  the 
bishop  to  transfer  the  case  to  himself.  As  this  was  a  suit  in  an  ecclesiastical 
court,  this  must  mean  that  the  king  procured  a  stet  processus  until  the  ques- 
tion of  violation  of  privilege  had  been  decided  before  himself  and  the 
council.  Upon  receipt  of  this  notice,  the  archdeacon  avers  that  he  at  once 
inhibited  his  official  from  taking  further  steps.  This  inhibition  the  official 
who  appears  to  have  been  the  Rural  Dean  of  Cranwich,  in  Norfolk,^ 
acknowledges  himself  to  have  received  and  avers  that  in  comphance  with 
it  he  abstained  from  any  further  intervention.  The  king's  attorney,  on  the 
other  side,  produced  a  record  of  the  proceedings  before  the  official  which 
had  been  transmitted  by  the  bishop  of  Norwich.  Among  these  it  was  set 
forth  that  the  chaplain  of  Yaxley  in  the  presence  of  a  public  notary,  Robert 
de  Cockerton,  acknowledged  that  on  the  8  March,  1315,  he  had  given 
notice  to  Joan  of  Bar  that  she  was  cited  to  appear  in  the  church  of  St. 
Nicholas  Brakeden  as  respondent  in  a  suit  for  a  divorce  from  her  husband, 
the  Earl  Warenne;  that  the  countess  not  entering  an  appearance  was  pro- 
nounced by  the  official  to  be  in  contumacy  and  citations  ordered  to  be 
posted  up  at  the  doors  of  certain  churches  and  in  certain  manors;  and  that 
by  these  she  was  again  ordered  to  enter  an  appearance  and  file  an  answer 
in  Brakeden  Church,  the  time  being  enlarged  from  15  March  to  12  April, 
1315.  Confronted  with  this  document,  the  official  pleaded  by  way  of  con- 
fession and  avoidance,  that  though  he  was  responsible  for  what  had  taken 
place,  the  record  shewed  that  no  citation  had  been  served,  but  only  notice 
given  that  a  citation  had  been  issued  elsewhere.  Further,  the  notification 
was  not  made  by  him,  but  by  a  certain  dean  of  the  diocese  of  Norwich ;  and 
any  other  proceedings  to  which  he  himself  had  been  a  party  had  been  not 
consequential  to  that  notification,  but  independent  of  it  and  in  accordance 
with  the  forms  of  the  law  ecclesiastical.  Inasmuch  as  the  proceeding  in  the 
crypt  of  St.  Stephen's  appears  to  have  satisfied  the  canonical  exigencies 
respecting  citations  and  to  have  justified,  in  the  opinion  of  the  accused 
ecclesiastics,  the  consequent  charge  of  contumacy,  the  official's  refinement 
was  held  unsubstantial.  This  conclusion  was  fortified  by  his  inability  to 
produce  any  evidence  of  the  more  formal  and  attested  citations  to  which 
he  had  referred  in  his  defence,  so  that  he  was  estopped  from  pleading  the 
invalidity  of  his  own  procedure.  In  the  words  of  the  judgment,  "  he  con- 
tinued his  process  upon  the  same  notification  as  if  it  were  a  due  and  mani- 

'  Cal.  Inq.  post  morlem,  7  Ed.  II,  i.  149,  259,  cf.  ibid,  ii,  136. 
•  As  to  this  see  p.  29,  n.  24. 


Ixviii  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

fest  citation."  His  culpability  was  enhanced  by  his  disobedience  to  the 
inhibition  issued  bj-  the  archdeacon.  He  was  therefore  committed  to  the 
Tower  of  London  during  the  king's  pleasure.  The  archdeacon,  as  formally 
responsible  for  proceedings  in  his  name,  was  ordered  to  appear  at  the  next 
parliament,  while  instructions  were  issued  to  the  sheriffs  of  London,  York- 
shire, and  Lincolnshire  to  arrest  the  notary  and  witnesses  guilty,  with  the 
official,  of  contempt  of  court  and  produce  them  before  the  king  on  25  June 
following. 

So  far  as  this  batch  of  papers  is  concerned,  the  case  stops  here,  but  other 
records  enable  us  to  trace  its  subsequent  fortunes.  The  council  could  not 
take  upon  itself  to  stay  proceedings  in  a  court  christian.  That  was  effected 
by  the  inhibition  of  the  diocesan,  the  bishop  of  Norwich.  But  though  Ed- 
ward II  was  not  of  a  temper  to  overlook  an  invasion  of  his  prerogative,  he 
entertained  no  objection  to  the  divorce  of  his  niece,  with  whose  ill  relations 
towards  her  husband  he  was  acquainted.  Three  j'ears  previously  he  had 
dispatched  one  of  his  yeomen  to  the  earl's  castle  of  Conisbrough  in  York- 
shire to  bring  the  countess  to  him  at  Windsor.  The  yeoman  discharged  his 
mission,  to  the  displeasure  of  some  one  highly  placed  and  high-handed 
enough  to  render  it  expedient  for  him  to  obtain  a  special  patent  of  indem- 
nity from  the  crown.'  The  countess  herself,  imder  the  protection  of  a  body- 
guard, was  lodged  in  the  Tower.*  It  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  the 
intimidator  was  the  earl  himself,  who  was  frequently  at  variance  with  the 
king.  In  1316  the  countess  appears  to  have  acquiesced  in  the  earl's  pro- 
ceedings for  divorce.  There  is  enrolled  in  the  Patent  Roll  for  24  February, 
1316,'  a  license  granted  by  the  king  at  the  request  of  John  de  Garenne  {sic), 
earl  of  Surrey,  to  bring  his  suit  for  a  divorce  against  Dame  Joan  of  Bar, 
the  king's  niece,  in  the  court  christian.  A  license  was  also  granted'"  to 
Matilda  de  Neirford,  "upon  withdrawing  from  her  process  of  precontract 
which  she  is  bringing  before  Master  Richard  de  Ryngestede,  official  of  the 
archdeacon  of  Norfolk,"  to  commence  proceedings  against  the  earl  and 
countess  touching  such  precontract  "before  Master  Gilbert  de  Myddelton'' 
and  Master  William  de  Braj','^  canons  of  the  church  of  St.  Paul,  London, 
and  the  Prior  of  the  Trinity  "...  or  others." 

'  Cal.  Pal.  Rolls,  7  Ed.  II,  p.  12.  end  of  Wiltland  in  St.  Paul's  Catliedral 

>  Cal.  Close  Rolls,  7  Ed.  II,  p.  45.  at  some  date  between  1309  and  1318,  in 

•  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  9  Ed.  II,  p.  434.  which  latter  year  he  was  promoted  by 

'"  Ibid.    It  is  not  clear  why  this  license  the  king,  the  see  being  void,  to  that  of 

was  required  unless  the  countess  was,  as  Wenlake.sbarn.     J.  Le  Neve,  FasH  Eccl. 

is   probable,   a  ward  of  the  king.     Her  Angl.   (1854),   ii,  320,  444,  448.     Novum 

mother  died  in  1298,  and  her  father  went  Repertorium,  ed.  G.  Hennessey  (1898),  pp. 

to  Cyprus,  whence  he  seems  never  to  have  53,  54. 

returned,  alxHit  the  same  time.     At  the  "  William  de  Bray  held  the  prebend  of 

date  of  her  marriage  in   1306,  she  may  St.  Pancraa,  1314-1324.    Lc  Neve,  ibid.  p. 

have  l)een  as  young  as  nine  years  of  age,  423.    He  was  also  Hector  of  Chelsea,  1310- 

and  could  not  have  Ijcen  more  than  thir-  19.    Noti.  Rep.  p.  119. 

teen.  "  The  priory  of  the  Holy  Trinity  within 

"  Gilbert  de  Myddelton  held  the  preb-  Aldgate.     The  Trior  at  the  date  of  the 


INTRODUCTION  Ixix 

That  the  countess  was  a  party  to  these  proceefiings  is  evident  from  the 
next  clause  in  tlie  patent.  Witliin  the  quarter  of  a  year  after  the  divorce 
is  pronounced,  the  earl  is  to  enfeoff  her  of  740  marks  (£493  3s  4d)  a  year  of 
land  in  the  towns  of  Graham"  and  Gretwelle,'*  and  the  soke  of  Gretwelle, 
and  to  give  security  for  the  due  performance  thereof.  He  was  also  to  be 
discharged  from  his  recognizance  in  £200  for  the  maintenance  of  Dame 
Joan  pending  the  suit''  and  for  the  costs.  It  is  significant  of  the  troubled 
state  of  the  country  that  patents  of  protection  were  issued  from  Lincoln, 
where  parliament  was  sitting,  to  him  and  to  Matilda  Neirford  for  them  and 
their  "  men,  advocates,  proctors  and  witnesses,  and  their  servants  and 
witnesses,"  for  theu-  safe  conduct."  The  suit  was  promptly  detemiined,  the 
marriage  with  the  countess  being  held  valid.  She  had  no  issue,  but  in  order, 
it  may  be  inferred,  to  defeat,  at  least  in  part,  her  claim  to  dower,  as  well  as 
to  make  provision  for  Matilda  de  Neirford  and  for  his  sons  by  her,  the  earl  on 
1  July,  1316,'*  surrendered  to  the  crown  a  number  of  his  manors  in  Surrey, 
Sussex,  Wales,  Yorkshu-e,  Lincolnshire,  and  elsewhere.  Of  those  in  Surrey, 
Sussex,  and  Wales  he  received  a  regrant  by  patent,  dated  Lmcoln,  4  August 
of  the  same  year."  The  terms  of  the  patent  were  to  the  earl  for  life,  with 
remainder  successively  to  "John  de  Warenna  and  Thomas  de  Warenna," 
sons  of  Matilda  Neirford  in  tail  male.  Of  those  in  Yorkshire  he  received 
a  regrant  for  life,  with  remainder  to  Matilda  Neirford  for  life,  with  the 
same  successive  remainders  to  their  two  sons.  Of  those  in  Lincolnshire  he 
received  a  regrant  for  life,  with  reversion  to  the  king  and  his  heirs,  of  the 
manors  and  towns  of  Staunford  (Stamford)  and  Grantham.  To  this  de- 
ferred consideration  for  its  regrants  the  crown  added  the  manor  of  Kensyng- 
ton,  Surrey,  of  which  it  retained  possession.  Nor  did  it  long  abstain  from 
anticipating  its  reversionary  claims.  By  a  deed  of  25  October,  1317,  the 
earl  released  the  Lincolnshire  manors.^  Warenne  never  lived  with  his 
wife  again.  She  quitted  England  in  1337  and  died  abroad  in  1361.  His 
sons  by  Matilda  Neii-ford,  John  and  Thomas  de  Warenne,  appear  to  have 
died  before  him.  He  himself  played  a  foremost  part  in  the  stormy  politics 
of  the  day,  as  may  be  seen  in  Hunter's  Deanery  of  Doncaster,^^  and  in  the 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  and  died  in  1347. 

license  was  Ralph  de  Cantuaria,  who  had  '^  Cal.  Close  Rolls,  9  Ed.  II,  p.  325. 

held  the  office  since  1302.    He  died  before  "  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  9  Ed.  II,  p.  401. 

June,  1316.    W.  Dugdale,  Monasticmi  (ed.  "  Cal.  Close  Rolls,  9  Ed.  II,   m.  2  d, 

1846),  vi,  150.  p.  347,  cf.  Pat.  Rolls,  9  Ed.  II,  pt.  ii,  m.  7. 

"  There  was  a  manor  of  this  name  in  pp.  483,  484. 
Lincolnshire.  Cal.  Inq.  post  mortem  (1806),  "  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  pp.  528,  529. 

i,  p.  60.    But  this  was  probably  intended  ">  Cal.  Close  Rolls,  11  Ed.  II,  m.  21  d., 

for  Grantham,  as  will  presently  appear.  p.  569. 

"  Now   Greetwell,    two   miles  east   of  "  Vol.  i  (1828),  108-110. 

Lincoln.    See  also  ibid,  ii,  256. 


IXX  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

COSFELD  V.  LEVEYS 

1322  The  grievances  of  foreign  merchants  were  often  unheeded  or  unre- 
dressed, but  the  petition  of  Godkin  Cosfeld  was  given  an  unusual  degree 
of  attention.  This  was  due  to  its  bearing  upon  the  relations  of  England 
and  the  Eastland  states  at  the  time.  Except  with  the  Hanseatic  League, 
there  was  no  treaty  with  them  as  yet,  but  diplomatic  intercourse  was  ac- 
tively maintained  with  the  various  towns  and  principalities  of  those  parts. 
From  the  earlj'  years  of  Edward  IPs  reign  grievances  of  Eastland  merchants 
were  being  heard,  that  their  ships  were  seized  and  goods  carried  off,  wliile 
Englishmen  made  similar  complaints  of  interferences  on  the  part  of  East- 
land privateers.'  Thus  there  was  imminent  a  war  of  reprisals.-  In  1313 
the  king  was  in  the  midst  of  negotiations  with  the  towns  of  Kampen,  Lii- 
beck,  Hamburg,  and  others,  demanding  redress  for  the  seizure  of  a  ship 
from  Boston.  Only  the  magistrates  of  Kampen  were  willing  to  do  anj'- 
thing,  and  they  sent  envoys  to  treat  with  the  king  and  council  in  England.^ 
But  when  the  envoys  appeared  to  be  seeking  only  delays,  all  further  ne- 
gotiations were  cut  short  by  the  king's  decision  to  levy  £1244,  the  amount 
of  the  English  clauns,  upon  the  goods  of  the  men  of  those  towns  by  way  of 
reprisal.  There  was  no  desire  for  further  hostilities,  for  Edward  had  need 
of  the  commodities  of  those  countries,  particularly  "  corn  and  other  vict- 
uals," *  in  the  way  of  supplies  for  his  Scottish  war.  In  order  to  protect  this 
traffic  in  corn  and  merchandise  the  king  saw  fit  in  1315  to  issue  a  special 
order  to  the  warden  of  the  Cinque  Ports  to  defend  the  ships  against  the  male- 
factors that  were  Ij'ing  in  wait  to  seize  them.'  The  plans  of  the  government 
therefore  were  seriously  jeopardized  by  the  success  of  such  malefactors 
and  the  resulting  stream  of  complaints,  made  by  the  men  of  Almain, 
of  the  piracies  being  committed  off  the  coast  of  Lincoln,  Norfolk,  and  Suf- 
folk. An  aggravation  in  the  present  case  was  the  fact  that  two  of  the  de- 
fendants, if  not  all  four,  were  "  king's  mariners,"  men  who  were  at  other 
times  commissioned  to  levy  ships  and  sailors  in  the  king's  service.  It  is 
possible  that  in  the  present  seizure  they  were  acting  on  the  pretext  of  the 
king's  requirements.  There  were  as  yet  no  special  tribunals,  like  the  later 
chancery  or  the  admiralty,  for  dealing  with  maritime  cases,  nor  did  the 
council  hear  them  as  a  rule,  and  so  the  matter  was  referred  to  the  king's 
bench  to  be  treated  by  the  common  law.  The  king  concurred  in  the  opinion 
of  the  council  that  his  own  mariners  should  be  punished  no  less  se\erely 
than  others.  Their  punishment  was  certainly  not  extreme,  for  they  are 
soon  found  again  in  the  king's  service. 

'  Cal.  CI.  Rolls,  5  Ed.  II,  pp.  364,  361,  ing  to  supersede  all  arrests  if  the  count 

434,  569,  etc.  would  do  the  same.    Hot.  Pari,  i,  293. 

'  In    1.314-1.5   merchants   of   England  '  Cat.  CI.  liolU,  7  Ed.  II,  p.  26. 

petitioned  that  they  were  Ix'ing  threatened  *  Ibid.,  10  Ed.  II,  p.  266. 

in  Flanders  with  arrest  by  reason  of  an  '  Documents  ninting  to  Law  and  Ciis- 

arrcBt  in  England  of  men  of  Flanders.  The  torn  of  the  ISca  (Navy  Records  Soc.  xlix), 

king  wrote  to  the  count  of  Flanders  offer-  p.  59. 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxi 

REX  V.  MIDDLETON 

1353  The  special  importance  of  this  case  is  its  bearing  upon  the  whole  history 
of  the  office  of  escheator.  It  was  perhaps  inevitable  that  an  officer,  whose 
fiinction  was  the  seizure  of  private  estates  into  the  king's  hand,  should  be 
unpopular,  and  that  escheators  '  should  be  habitually  complained  against, 
along  with  sheriffs  and  purveyors,  as  the  most  corrupted  ministers  of  the 
crown .  Usually  it  was  the  people  who  suffered  from  their  extortions,  but  some- 
tunes  the  king  himself  was  defrauded.  It  was  therefore  a  problem  of  long 
standing  how  the  escheators  should  be  appointed  and  controlled.  Origi- 
nally there  appears  to  have  been  a  single  escheator  for  the  entire  kingdom.' 
Henry  III  began  the  sj'stem  of  two  escheators,  one  for  the  lands  north  of 
the  Trent  and  the  other  for  the  lands  south  of  the  Trent.  In  1346  he  di\aded 
the  country  further  under  four  escheators,  with  subescheators  for  each 
county.^  But  the  dual  system  returned.  In  response  to  local  sentiment 
Edward  I  ordained  that  sheriffs  should  be  escheators  in  their  respective 
coxmties.''  Possibly  they  were  intended  to  act  as  subescheators,  for  the 
two  escheators,  north  and  south  of  the  Trent,  were  continued.*  As  a  check 
upon  the  general  escheators,  they  were  not  permitted  to  remain  in  office 
long,  and  encouragement  was  given  to  all  who  wished  to  complain  against 
them.*  Still  there  was  a  feeling  that  over  areas  so  large  these  officers  were 
too  powerful  and  too  little  responsible  to  local  interests.  Without  abolish- 
ing the  two  general  escheatorships,  Edward  III  added  several  regional 
escheators,  one  for  Somerset,  Dorset,  Devon,  and  Cornwall;  another  for 
Surrey,  Sussex,  Kent,  and  Middlesex;  another  for  York,  Northmnberland, 
Cumberland,  and  Westmoreland.'  In  1340  he  consented  to  a  statute, 
superseding  the  system  of  two  escheators  and  estabhshing  "  diverse 
escheators  of  less  estate,"  who  should  be  chosen  every  year  in  the 
exchequer  just  like  the  sheriffs.^  Under  this  sj^stem  there  was  a  ready 
inclination,  as  Edward  I  had  proposed,  to  let  the  sheriffs  be  escheators 
in  their  respective  counties.  Just  as  WiUiam  Middleton  was  sheriff  and 
escheator  in  Norfolk  and  Suffolk,  so  it  was  in  most  of  the  counties 
of  England.  In  the  year  1350,  for  example,  out  of  the  twenty-nine 
counties  that  are  available  for  comparison,  all  but  six  were  given  to  the 
same  person  as  sheriff  and  escheator.'    After  the  fall  of  Middleton,  as  re- 

'  They  were  prone  to  conceal  ward-  ^  The  Statute  20  Ed.  Ill,  c.  6,  laid 

ships,  to  maintain  pleas,  to  form  confed-  down  that  in  all  cases  of  misdemeanor  of 

eracies,    etc.     Staluies   of  the   Realm,    i,  sheriffs,   escheators,   etc.,    the   chancellor 

236-238.  and  trea-surer  should  hear  the  complaints 

^  Such  an  office  was  granted  to  Peter  of  all  who  would  complain,  and  ordain 

de  Rivaulx  in  1232,  with  the  custody  of  speedy  remedy. 

all  escheats  and  wardships  in  England.  '  Cal.  CI.,  8  Ed.  Ill,  pp.  201,  203,  etc. 

Cal  Pat.,  16  Hen.  Ill,  p.  491.  '  Stat.  14  Ed.  Ill,  c.  8. 

3  Ibid.,  30  Hen.  Ill,  p.  482.  »  The  sheriffs  are  given  in  LisU  and  In- 

*  Msdox,  Hist,  of  Exch.,  ii,  175.  rfexes  (Pub.  Rec.  Office,  vol.  ix);  the  names 

'  The  Close  Rolls  in  fact  show  no  devi-  of  escheators  are  found  in  Close  Rolls  and 

ation  from  the  custom  of  two  escheators.  Fine  Rolls,  passim. 


Ixxii  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

counted  in  our  case,  the  policy  in  regard  to  these  appointments  was  com- 
pletely changed.  Taking  the  j'ear  1362  as  an  experiment  we  find  that 
throughout  thirty-four  counties  in  which  comparisons  are  possible,  with 
onty  two  possible  exceptions,  the  escheators  were  not  the  same  men  as  the 
sheriffs,  nor  does  it  appear  that  the  earlier  policy  was  ever  restored.  The 
result  is  all  the  more  significant  when  considered  in  connexion  with  other 
steps  that  were  taken  toward  the  diminution  of  the  functions  of  the  sheriff.*" 


REX  V.  ROUCEBY  AND  AVENEL 

1354  The  king's  case  against  William  Rouceby  in  1354  is  to  be  understood  in 
connexion  with  the  policy  of  Edward  III  toward  Genoa.  This  was  to  main- 
tain at  all  costs  friendly  relations  with  the  city  in  the  midst  of  the  war  with 
France,  while  the  Genoese,  like  the  Swiss  in  the  military  operations  of  a  later 
time,  were  inclined  to  lend  their  aid  now  to  one  side  and  now  to  the  other. 
At  a  heavy  cost  the  king  succeeded  in  negotiating  treaty  after  treaty,  by 
which  the  city  agreed  to  make  no  alliance  with  the  king's  enemies.'  In  one 
case,  mentioned  in  1338,  he  went  so  far  as  to  compensate  the  owners  of  a 
Genoese  galley  out  of  his  own  privy  purse. ^  In  the  treaty  of  1347  an  indem- 
nit}^  of  £10,000  for  certain  recent  losses  caused  by  English  sailors  was  prom- 
ised, and  another  indemnity  of  8,000  marks  for  losses  dating  from  the  reign 
of  Edward  II.'  The  method  of  paying  these  indemnities  was  the  uncertain 
one  of  remitting  custom  duties  to  an  equivalent  amount.  To  the  same  end 
letters  of  protection  and  safe-conduct  were  liberally  granted  to  Genoese 
merchants,  to  come  and  go  in  all  parts  of  the  realm,  provided  they  did  not 
communicate  with  the  enemy .^  But  the  work  of  diplomacy  was  being  en- 
dangered by  the  acts  of  privateers  causing  the  Genoese  to  complain  again 
and  the  king  to  promise  further  indemnities.  In  1353  the  king  specially 
commanded  his  admirals  to  observe  the  protections  that  had  been  granted 
to  various  shipmasters  of  Genoa.'  Under  these  circmnstances  the  attack 
made  under  the  orders  of  John  Avenel  the  king's  captain  and  lieutenant 
of  Brittany,  as  recounted  in  the  present  record,  was  peculiarly  disconcert- 
ing. 

There  had  been  previous  complaints  of  the  same  kind  against  the  captain 
of  Brittany,  who  was  prone  to  seize  ves.sels  that  were  driven  by  stonn  or 
were  awaiting  a  favorable  wind  in  the  havens  of  the  principality.  On  two 
occasions  Thomas  Dagworth,  a  predecessor  of  John  Avenel,  was  called  to 
answer  for  such  seizures  before  the  king's  council.^  Of  the  outcome  we 
know  nothing,  except  that  Dagworth  was  soon  afterwards  followed  by 
another  captain.    The  present  case  is  remarkable  for  affording  a  complete 

'"  See  Ughtretl  v.  Musgrave,  p.  54.  '  Il)id.,  iii,  120  f. 

>  Foedera,  R.  Ill,  i,  205,  218,  243,  280;  «  C,U.  I'al.  HolU,  1374-77,  p.  507. 

O.  509,  087,  703,  738,  789.  »  Ibid.,  27  Kd,  III,  p.  472. 

«  Ibid.,  R.  II,  ii,  1011.  •  Cal.  Close  Rolls,  23  Ed.  Ill,  pp.  4,  54,  65. 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxiii 

record  of  the  hearing  at  one  stage  before  the  council.  Evidently  a  suit  was 
first  begun  on  complaint  of  the  injured  Genoese  merchants,  but  because  of 
its  public  interest  the  suit  had  been  dropped  in  favour  of  a  prosecution  in 
the  name  of  the  king.  At  this  point  our  record  begins.  According  to  a 
now  established  procedure,  the  hearing  was  in  the  chancery  "  according  to 
the  custom  of  the  chancery." '  To  use  the  language  of  a  later  day,  the 
method  pursued  was  of  the  common  law  rather  than  the  equitable  side  of 
the  chancery,  that  is  a  plea  in  the  Latin  language,  an  arraignment  of  the 
defendants,  pleadings,  and  proof  by  means  of  an  inquisition.  The  court, 
however,  was  the  council,  from  which  the  chancery  as  a  body  of  judicature 
had  hardly  begun  to  diverge. 

The  defence  attempted  to  show  that  there  had  been  an  evasion  of  cus- 
tom duties,  in  that  the  ship  had  stayed  in  the  waters  of  Brittany  through 
three  flows  of  the  tide,  the  men  even  coming  ashore,  and  then  sailed  away 
in  the  night.  The  vessel,  having  been  pursued  and  captured  at  the  Scilly 
Islands,  was  claimed  as  a  prize  of  the  captain  of  Brittany,  who  under  his 
grant  of  office  claimed  all  the  revenues  of  Brittany,  such  as  had  pertained  to 
the  former  dukes.*  There  were  two  questions,  therefore,  before  the  court: 
was  the  vessel  a  lawful  prize  ?  and,  if  so,  was  it  a  prize  of  the  captain  ? 
The  defence  was  completely  swept  aside  by  the  discovery  that  the  ship 
was  coming  to  Bristol  under  letters  of  safe-conduct.  Since  it  was  bearing 
a  cargo  of  wine,  a  trade  specially  favoured,  it  was  entitled  to  come  in  fact 
to  any  port.  Under  the  Ordinance  of  the  Staple,  recently  passed,  foreign 
merchants  were  promised  redress  against  the  king's  officers  without  being 
required  to  sue  at  common  law.  Almost  before  the  case  was  finished, 
John  Avenel  was  dismissed  from  the  captaincy  of  Brittany,  and  another 
appointed  in  his  stead.'  He  was  afterwards  convicted  by  the  council,  we 
learn  from  another  source,  and  his  property  confiscated  to  pay  for  the 
restitution  of  the  ship.'"  His  servant  William  Rouceby  escaped  further 
obligation  by  leaving  a  record  that  he  had  accounted  to  his  master  in  full 
for  the  ship  and  cargo.  To  the  Genoese  merchants,  in  recompense  for  this 
and  other  losses,  a  remission  of  the  duty  on  1,000  sacks  of  wool  was  prom- 
ised." 

'  Roi.  Pari.,  i,  433;    Marsden,  Select  of  the  case  were  issued.    Cal.  Pal.,  28  Ed. 

Pkas  in  the  Admiralty  (Selden  Soc,  1892),  III,  p.  65. 

i,  xxiv.  ">  These  facts  are  stated  in  a  writ  of  6 

»  This  was  stated  in  the  grant  to  Sir  May,  1355  (Cal.  Pat.,  29  Ed.  Ill,  p.  207). 

Walter    Bentley,    John    Avenel's    prede-  His  estate  was  finally  released  from  fur- 

cessor,  Fcedera,  O.,  v,  683.  ther  claims  after  his  death  in  1460  (Cal. 

•  Thomas    Holland    is    mentioned    as  CI.  Rolls,  34  Ed.  Ill,  p.  49;   also  35  Ed. 

already  appointed  captain  on  26  March.  Ill,  p.  184). 

This  was  before  all  the  consequent  writs  "  Cal.  Pal.,  28  Ed.  Ill,  p.  92. 


Ixxiv  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

BURTON-ON-TRENT  v.  MEYNELL 

1355  The  petition  of  Burton-on-Trent  v.  Meynell  is  a  complaint  against  an 
aggressive  knight  of  the  county  who  has  been  committing  deeds  of  violence 
against  the  abbey.  According  to  evidence  derived  from  other  sources  the 
abbot  and  convent  had  made  an  earlier  complaint,  which  was  answered  by 
the  appointment  of  a  commission  of  oyer  and  terminer.'  The  present  com- 
plaint repeats  the  charges  and  adds  that  because  of  the  dire  threats  made 
by  their  enemy,  they  dare  not  sue  before  the  commission.  They  pray 
therefore  that  the  defendant  may  be  brought  before  the  king  and  council 
to  answer. 

The  petition  points  directly  to  a  deficiency  in  the  system  of  commissions 
of  oyer  and  terminer  then  extensively  used.  This  was  a  method,  begim  by 
Henrj'  III  and  elaborated  by  Edward  I,-  that  had  long  been  the  favorite 
means  of  the  council  for  dealing  with  criminal  cases  of  exceptional  diffi- 
culty. Even  when  the  council  gave  a  preliminary  hearing,  it  was  likely  at 
one  stage  or  another  to  refer  the  case,  if  not  to  one  of  the  regular  courts, 
then  to  a  commission.  The  creation  of  general  commissions,  like  those  of 
the  justices  of  the  peace  in  every  county,  did  not  diminish  the  number  of 
special  commissions,  which  were  granted  by  hundreds  every  year.  The 
system  possessed  manifest  advantages,  m  that  it  reUeved  the  council  of  an 
excess  of  business;  the  commissions  could  be  created  to  any  number;  they 
might  be  composed  of  men  especially  suitable  for  the  case  in  question;  and 
they  could  act  with  promptness  in  the  inmiediate  neighborhood  where  the 
events  occurred.  The  commissions  were  not  altogether  unpopular,  for 
many  a  petitioner  asked  for  an  oyer  and  tenniner  as  an  alternative  to  a 
hearing  before  the  king  and  council.^  There  was  a  prevailing  feeling,  how- 
ever, that  the  commissions  were  an  irregularity  in  judicial  procedure,  and 
that  they  were  appointed  too  freely  and  to  the  detriment  of  the  law.  The 
Statute  of  Westminster,  13  Edw.  I,  c.  29  granted  that  no  such  commissions 
should  be  appointed  except  to  regular  justices,  "  unless  it  be  for  heinous 
trespass,"  and  again  the  Statute  2  Edw.  Ill  laid  down  that  writs  of  oyer 
and  tenniner  should  be  granted  onlj'^  "  for  grievous  and  horrible  trespass." 
The  Statute  20  Edw.  Ill,  c.  3,  required  that  justices  of  oyer  and  terminer 
should  take  a  professional  oath. 

But  the  more  the  connnissions  were  regulated,  the  more  plainlj^  do  their 
limitations  appear,  and  the  less  are  they  able  to  deal  with  extreme  con- 
ditions. Following  the  procedure  of  the  common  law  they  were  often 
corrupted  and  defied  in  tiie  .same  way  as  other  courts.  In  1354  there  was 
a  flagrant  instance  of  a  session  of  commissioners  in  Lincolnshire  being 

'  This  commission  was  daloci  12  Dec,  '  Treated  in  King's  Council,  pp.  265  f. 

1354,  and  was  issued  to  Richard  Stafford,  '  Rot.  Pari.,  i,  60,  etc. 

Roger  Hillarj",  and  Nicholas  Langford  as 
justices.    CW.  Fal.,  28  Ed.  Ill,  p.  164. 


INTRODUCTION  IxXV 

broken  up  by  a  certain  knight  who  invaded  the  hall  where  they  were  sitting, 
and  with  drawn  sword  seized  one  of  the  justices  by  the  throat,  and  would 
have  killed  hiin  had  others  not  prevented.*  In  this  case  the  knight  was  to 
be  arrested  and  brought  before  the  council.  Later  cases  in  this  volume, 
like  Alte  Wode  v.  Clifford,  show  how  the  commissions  might  fail  because 
their  juries  were  corrupted  or  because  sheriffs  and  bailiffs  were  in  league 
with  this  or  that  powerful  party.  But  more  often  the  commissions  are 
spoken  of  as  "  procured  "  or  "  stolen,"  that  is  appointed  in  the  interests  of 
one  party  or  another,  possibly  "  champertors  "  interested  in  the  suits 
brought  before  them.^  Among  many  complaints  of  this  kind,  there  was 
one  of  the  parson  of  Southampton,  5  Richard  II,  who  alleges  that  the  prior 
of  Huntingdon  has  obtained  a  commission  of  oyer  and  tenniner,  and  has 
thus  gained  an  mijust  award  of  £90  against  the  parson.  He  therefore  prays 
that  the  matter  may  be  examined  by  the  good  men  of  the  realm  in  the 
present  parliament  and  particularly  that  no  oyer  and  terminer  be  granted.* 
One  of  the  worst  abuses  in  connection  with  the  commissions  was  revealed 
in  the  parliament  of  1364-65,  when  the  commons  alleged  that  the  king  had 
appomted  commissioners  of  oyer  and  tenniner  for  life,  granting  them  a 
third  of  the  fines  and  amercements  of  their  sessions,  so  that  they  were  dis- 
posed to  procure  as  many  indictments  as  possible  for  the  sake  of  the  profits. 
The  king  consented  to  abolish  all  such  commissions  and  to  appoint  only 
suitable  men  in  the  future.' 

Now  the  prayer  of  the  abbot  of  Burton  that  his  case  might  be  heard  by 
the  council  was  not  granted.  Instead,  a  strengthened  commission  of  oyer 
and  terminer  was  all  that  was  conceded.*  Sir  Richard  Stafford,^  an  ex- 
perienced commissioner  in  cases  of  the  sort,  and  four  of  the  most  reputable 
of  the  king's  Justices '"  apparently  succeeded  in  tenninating  the  conflict. 
At  least  it  is  heard  of  no  more.  But  the  council  could  not  refuse  every 
petition  of  the  kind.  In  the  first  year  of  Richard  II  it  was  conceded  in 
parliament  that  there  might  be  cases  "  against  such  high  personages  that 
right  could  not  be  done  elsewhere."  "  The  council  heard  at  length  such 
cases  as  Esturmy  v.  Courtenmj  (p.  77)  and  others  that  follow.    In  answermg 

«  C(d.  Pat,  28  Ed.  Ill,  p.  166.  p.  366;  27  Ed.  Ill,  p.  522),  and  in  one  case 
'  Ancient  Petilions,  nos.  14,969,  15,200,  convicted   a    man    in    £1000    (ibid.,    31 
12,824.  Ed.  Ill,  p.  606).     On  the  same  day  as  the 
'  Ibid.,  7129.  above  commission,    1   Feb.,   he  was  ap- 
'  Rot.  Pari.,  ii,  286;   also  302.  pointed   to   another  commission   to  deal 
'  This  commission  was  issued  on  1  Feb.,  with  a  case  of  murder  at  Burton  on  Trent 
1355,  to  Richard  Stafford,  Henry  Greene,  (ibid.,  29  Ed.  Ill,  p.  233). 
Nicholas   Langford,    John    Cokeyn,    and  '"  Henry  Greene  was  justice  of  com- 
Robert  Fraunceys.    Cat.  Pat.,  29  Ed.  Ill,  mon  pleas  in  1341,  and  1341-56,  and  chief 
p.  229.  justice    of    the    king's    bench,    1361-65. 
•  Of  Clifton,   brother  of  Ralph,   first  Nicholas    Langford    held    the    manor    of 
earl  {Diet.  Nat.  Biog.).     Not  only  did  he  Langford    in    Derbyshire.      Cokeyn    and 
serve  on  a  great  number  of  commissions  Fraunceys  were  active  commissioners,  the 
in  Staffordshire,  Oxfordshire,  and  Derby-  latter  commissioner  of  the  peace  in  Derby- 
shire, but  he  was  notably  successful  in  se-  shire, 
curing  indictments  {Cal.  Pat.,  26  Ed.  Ill,  "  Rot.  Pari.,  iii,  21. 


Ixxvi  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

the  petition  of  Werkesworth  v.  Pensax  (p.  81)  the  council  made  a  further 
acknowledgement  of  its  duty  to  hear  the  case  of  a  poor  suppliant  against 
a  great  malefactor.  In  all  these  cases  the  evidence  is  not  that  the  council 
eagerly  usurped  the  power,  but  rather  that  it  yielded  to  the  pressure  of 
suitors  in  taking  the  responsibihty. 


LOMBARDS  v.  MERCERS 

1359  Almost  all  details  of  the  outbreak  of  the  London  mercers  against  the 
Lombards  have  vanished,  save  those  preserved  in  the  document  here 
printed.  It  cannot,  however,  be  doubted  that  the  incident  was  part  of 
that  long  struggle  between  the  crown  and  the  boroughs  wliich  had  become 
acute  under  Edward  I  and  in  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century,  after 
various  vicissitudes,  was  resolved,  with  the  aid  of  parUament,  in  favour  of 
the  crown. 

In  the  year  1303,  Edward  I  by  a  masterful  stroke  of  policy  granted  to 
foreign  merchants  a  general  charter,  well-known  as  the  Cai-ta  Mercatoria} 
Among  those  whose  securitj',  as  the  preamble  recites,  it  was  specially  de- 
vised to  safeguard,  were  the  merchants  of  Lombardy.  All  foreign  mer- 
chants were  to  be  at  liberty  to  enter  the  English  dominions  with  all  kinds 
of  merchandise,  exempt  from  certain  specified  local  exactions.  Thej'  were 
to  be  free  to  sell  by  wholesale  in  all  cities,  boroughs,  and  market  towns, 
while  two  classes  of  them,  the  Spicers  and  the  Mercers,  might  retail  spices 
and  the  wares  called  mercery.  This  provision  gave  legal  authority  to  a 
practice  already  estabhshed,^  but  one  which  was,  nevertheless,  unpopular 
in  the  towns,  since  it  infringed  the  principle,  jealously  maintained  where 
possible,  that  outsiders,  whether  ahcn  or  native,  should  be  excluded  from 
retail  trade.  A  nmnber  of  other  provisions  followed  in  favour  of  alien 
merchants,  in  return  for  which  they  undertook  to  pay  certain  fixed  duties 
at  the  ports.  From  the  first  the  citizens  of  London  were  restive  to  the  new 
regulations.'  Soon  after  the  accession  of  Edward  II,  they  assailed  the 
Carta  Mercatoria,  and  in  1311  procured  a  royal  ordinance  for  its  revo- 
cation, "  because  the  same  was  made  contrary  to  the  Great  Charter  and 
the  franchise  of  the  City  of  London,  and  without  the  assent  of  the  Baron- 
age." "  Henceforth,"  it  was  ordained,  "  Merchant  Strangers  shall  come, 
abide  and  go  according  to  the  ancient  customs,  and  according  to  that  which 
of  old  they  were  wont  to  do."  * 

Whether  or  not  this  ordinance  was  intended  to  exclude  alien  Mercers 
from  retail  trading,'  it  was  so  interpreted  by  the  citizens  of  London.    But 

'  1  February,  1303.    At  length  in  Ed-  minuatim  vendi  possint,  prout  antca  fieri 

ward  Ill's  Ins-peximus  and  Confirmaiion  consuevit."    Ibid. 

of  8  Aug.,  1328.    Rymcr,  Fmdcra  (Hague  '  Lelter-books  of  the  City  oj  London  (ed. 

cd.,  1740),  II,  iii,  15.  R.  H.  Sharpp,  1901),  C,  pp.  xv,  xvi. 

'  "  Ita  taincn  quod  mcrces  quos  vul-  *  .')  Kd.  II,  f.  11. 

garit«r   merceriae    vocantur,    ac    species  '  Schanz     (Englitche      HandehpolUik, 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxvii 

in  1322,  the  successes  of  Edward  II  over  the  barons  turned  the  tables  in 
favour  of  the  foreign  merchants,  and  tlieir  old  privileges  were  restored. 
The  wrath  of  the  Londoners  blazed  forth.  The  Italians,  on  this  and  other 
grounds,  particularly  odious,  were  attacked,  and  the  houses  of  the  Com- 
pany of  the  Bardi  plundered  and  burnt. ^  In  1326  the  freedom  of  the  City 
was  withdrawn  from  all  aliens.' 

A  partial  reaction  followed.  In  1335  parliament  laid  down  the  principle 
of  liberty  of  trade  to  aliens  as  established  by  the  Carta  Mercatoria.  The 
preamble  of  the  statute  of  that  year '  recites  that  general  complaints  had 
been  made  "  that  in  divers  cities,  boroughs,  ports  of  the  sea,  and  other 
places  of  his  (the  king's)  reahn,  great  duress  and  grievous  damage  have 
been  done  to  him  and  his  people  by  some  people  of  cities,  boroughs,  ports 
of  the  sea,  and  other  places  of  the  said  Reahn,  which  in  long  time  past  have 
not  suffered,  nor  yet  will  suffer  merchant  strangers,  nor  other,  which  do 
carry  and  bring  in  by  sea  or  land  wines.  Aver  de  pois,°  and  other  livings  and 
victuals,  with  divers  other  things  to  be  sold,  necessary  and  profitable  for 
the  king,  his  prelates,  earls,  barons,  and  other  noblemen,  and  the  commons 
of  this  reahn,  to  sell  or  dehver  such  wines,  livings,  victuals,  nor  other 
things  to  any  other  than  to  themselves."  The  consequence  is  alleged  to 
be  an  enhancement  of  price  to  the  injury  of  the  consumer. 

As  a  remedy  for  these  mischiefs,  freedom  to  sell  was  granted  to  the  ahen 
merchant  and  forfeiture  of  franchise  denounced  against  the  borough  con- 
travening this  principle,  while  any  person  guilty  of  "  disturbing  "  such 
merchant  was  punishable  with  double  damages,  a  year's  imprisonment, 
and  a  fine  to  the  crown.  One  concession  of  importance,  however,  was  not 
regranted,  that  of  Uberty  for  aUens  to  trade  by  retail.'"  That  step  was 
taken  in  1351,"  when  retail  trade  was  thrown  open,  "  notwithstanding  any 
franchises,  grants,  or  custom  used,"  to  the  traders  enumerated  in  the  Act 
of  1335.  Probably  on  account  of  the  opposition  excited,  it  was  thought 
necessary  to  confirm  the  principle  in  a  statute  of  1353.'^  Other  statutes  for 
the  encouragement  of  foreign  traders  were  passed  about  the  same  time.'' 

In  the  light  of  these  events,  the  exasperation  felt  by  the  citizens  against 
those  aliens  who  were  specially  engaged  in  retail  dealings,  as  were  the 
Lombard  mercers,  becomes  intelligible.  It  must  be  understood  that  the 
mercer  at  that  date  was  by  no  means  restricted  to  a  trade  in  silk  goods. 

1881,  i,  394)  thinks  that  thiswas  so,  but  the  the  Cfrossarii  or  Grocers."    Liber  Albus 

concluding  clause,  quoted  above,  appears  (ed.  by  H.  T.  Riley,  1861),  p.  198,  n.  2. 

designedly  ambiguous.  '"  See  the  Third  Charter  of  Ed.   Ill, 

'  Villani,  Islorie  Fiorenlini,  B,  10,  c.  3.  dated  26  March,   1337,   which  abolishes 

Schanz,  i,  395.  exemptions  in  favour  of  retail  trade  by 

'  Riley,  Memorials,  p.  151.  ahens,  any  statute  notwithstanding.     W. 

»  9  Ed.  Ill,  St.  1,  c.  1.  de  G.  Birch,   Historical  Charters  (1887), 

•  "  Small  wares  that  were  weighed  by  p.  61. 

avoir-du-poise,  and  were  sold  by  the  Mer-  "  25  Ed.  Ill,  st.  3,  c.  2. 

cers,  in  contradistinction  to  those  weighed  "  27  Ed.  Ill,  st.  2,  c.  11. 

by  the  Great  Beam,  and  sold  wholesale  by  "  See  Schanz,  i,  397. 


Ixxviii  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S    COUNCIL 

As  late  as  1696,  Phillips  defines  a  Mercer  as  "  in  the  City  one  that  deals 
only  in  Silks  and  Stuffs:  In  Country  Towns,  one  that  trades  in  all  sorts  of 
Linen,  Woollen,  Silk,  and  Grocery  wares."  "  It  is  probable  that  the  limi- 
tation of  the  term  occurred  at  a  comparatively  late  date.  Hence,  the 
foreign  mercer  would  be  a  competitor  with  traders  dealing  in  a  variety  of 
goods,  wliich  have  been  enumerated  as  comprising  "  bombazine,  fustian, 
Suile,"  Armour,  all  sorts  of  workes  made  of  Iron,  or  brasse,  and  other  mer- 
ceries."'° 

Lombard  Street  was  the  home  of  the  foreign  mercer.  "  The  Mercery," 
saj's  a  writer  of  1662,  "  is  gone  from  out  of  Lombard  Street."  "  It  was 
not  here,  however,  but  in  the  English  mercers'  quarter  that  the  outrages 
took  place  which  were  the  subject  of  inquiry  in  these  documents. 

The  original  complaint  of  the  Lombards  has  not  survived.  That  they 
were  mercers  cannot  be  doubted,  since  their  assailants  were  of  that  mystery. 
That  they  were  subjected  to  personal  violence  of  a  grave  description  we 
shall  presently  see.  Some  five  years  earlier  the  ill  usage  experienced  by 
alien  traders  at  the  hands  of  the  citizens  had  led  them  to  petition  that  a 
member  of  the  council  might  be  specially  conmiissioned  to  give  audience 
to  their  complaints,  seeing  that  the  treasurer  and  the  chancellor,  to  whom 
they  were  referred,  had  so  much  important  business  to  transact  that  they 
forgot  that  of  minor  interest.^'  The  answer  given  was  that  the  treasurer 
and  chancellor  should  hear  their  complaints  when  they  could  and,  if  pre- 
vented, should  appoint  judges  or  other  experts  to  do  so.  Whether  the 
riot  was  suppressed  by  the  city  authorities,  or  by  the  peremptory  inter- 
vention of  the  council  does  not  directly  appear,  but  the  prayer  of  the 
Lombards  in  document  A  is  a  clear  indication  that  they  relied  upon  the 
king,  and  not  upon  the  city,  for  protection.  Further,  some  of  the  leaders, 
we  know,  were  apprehended  and  thrown  into  the  Tower,  a  royal  fortress; 
others  fled  from  justice.  Two,  however,  as  will  presently  be  seen,  fell  to 
the  custody  of  the  sheriffs  of  London. 

Justice  was  slow  in  those  days.  The  only  dated  document  here  printed 
is  B,  8  July,  33  Ed.  Ill  (1359).  We  learn,  however,  from  the  Close  Rolls 
that  proceedings  had  been  set  on  foot  before  1  November,  1357,  to  the 
summer  of  which  year  the  riot  belongs.  At  that  date  one  of  the  accused, 
Adam  de  Wroxham  of  London,  mercer,  had  already  been  before  the  coun- 
cil. The  Close  Roll  in  question'' has  a  writ  addressed  to  the  sheriffs  of 
London,  ordermg  his  release  upon  mainprise.  The  curious  part  of  the  order 
is  that  it  purports  to  be  issued  upon  the  prisoner's  own  petition  "as  he 
fears  that  he  may  be  impeached  and  troubled  for  certain  trespasses  com- 

"  E.  Phillips,  New  World  of  Word9  (ed.         '«  Blundevil,  Dkl.  Exerc.  V.  ii  (1597), 
5);   quoted  in  the  Oxford  Engl.  Dicl.  quoted  in  Oxford  Did. 

"  Qu.  stuff  for  pillow-cases.     "  Souille         "  J.  Graunt,  Observations  on  the  Bills  of 
—  Taie  d'oreiller,  en  quelqucs  provinces."     of  Mortality,"  ix,  12.  56,  quoted  ibid. 
E.  Littr6.  '»  Rot.  Pari,  ii,  262,  57  (1354). 

'•  Page  432. 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxix 

mitted  in  that  city  upon  certain  merchants  of  Lombardy  with  which  he  is 
charged."  The  condition  of  the  release  is  that  his  mainpernors  undertake 
to  produce  him  "  before  the  king  and  his  council  at  order  to  answer  for  the 
premises."  The  writ  is  signed,  confonnably  to  the  king's  answer  of  1354, 
by  the  chancellor.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  city  authorities  were 
themselves  contemplating  action  and  that,  for  some  reason  not  easy  to 
guess,  the  accused  preferred  the  tribimal  of  the  council,  probably  by  no 
means  reluctant  to  assert  a  jurisdiction  in  the  matter.  A  month  later, 
1  December,  1357,  a  writ  issued  by  the  chancellor  addressed  to  Robert 
Morley,  keeper  of  the  Tower  of  London,  or  his  deputy,  ordered  the  release 
on  mainprise  to  appear  before  the  council  of  "Thomas  de  Maldon,  of 
London,  Mercer,"  miprisoned  for  the  same  offences.  The  writ  recites  that 
he  had  already  been  "  a  long  while  detained."  ^"  Two  months  later  an- 
other writ  from  the  chancellor  ordered  the  constable  of  the  Tower  to  re- 
lease "  Nicholas  de  Sharpenham,  mercer,"  on  the  same  terms.^'  Lastly, 
on  4th  March,  1358,  another  writ  issued  from  the  chancellor  to  the  sheriffs 
of  London,  couched  in  phraseology  similar  to  that  in  the  case  of  Wroxham, 
ordering  the  release  of  Thomas  Everard  of  London,  mercer,  from  their 
custody,  upon  the  same  terms  as  to  appearance.^  In  each  of  these  cases 
the  names  of  the  mainpernors  were  set  out  as  in  the  document  B  here 
published.  That  document,  however,  is,  so  far  as  it  goes,  a  dupUcate  of  the 
Close  Roll,  being,  as  it  is,  a  return  to  the  writ  of  8  July,  1359.  It  is  ma- 
terial to  notice  that  in  two  of  the  above  instances  the  council  takes  the 
prisoners  out  of  the  city's  custody  and  itself  assumes  seisin  of  the  case. 

In  the  case  of  Nicholas  de  Sharpenham,  mentioned  above,  the  Close 
Roll  suggests  problems  other  than  those  affecting  the  rest  of  the  defendants. 
The  Close  Roll  runs  as  follows :  "To  the  Constable  of  the  Tower  of  London, 
or  to  him  who  supplies  his  place.  Order  to  release  Nicholas  de  Sharpen- 
ham, mercer,  from  prison,  by  a  mainprise,  as  the  king  ordered  the  constable 
to  certify  why  Nicholas  was  imprisoned  in  the  Tower,  and  he  who  suppUed 
the  Constable's  place  returned  that  Nicholas  was  deUvered  to  him  by 
Henry  de  Cove  of  London,  mercer,  and  Richard  Shakel,  serjeant  of  London, 
who  told  him  to  keep  Nicholas  safely  until  the  King's  Council  should  send 
for  him  to  be  brought  before  the  Council,  and  that  he  had  no  other  cause  or 
warrant."  There  follow  the  names  of  the  mainpernors,  as  in  the  text  of  C, 
who  "  have  mainperned  in  Chancery  to  have  Nicholas  before  the  Council 
when  notified,  to  answer  to  the  king  and  others  when  the  king  wishes  to 
speak  against  him."  ^^ 

The  puzzUng  part  of  this  entry  is  that  Henry  Cove,  who  with  the  city 
Serjeant  arrested  Sharpenham,  was  not  only  himself  a  mercer,  but  was 
singled  out  by  the  complaining  Lombards  as  a  principal  in  the  riot,  while 
his  servant  Geoffrey  Bernham  actually  headed  the  band  of  assailants. 

»  Page  432.  »  Page  495. 

"  Page  498.  "  Close  Rolls,  1  Feb.,  1358,  p.  498. 


IXXX  CASES   BEFORE    THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

That  Cove  should  have  handed  over  Sharpenham  to  the  acting  constable 
of  the  Tower  is  another  indication  that  it  was  an  armed  force  from  the 
council  that  first  intervened.  But  why  did  he  take  action  ?  It  may,  of 
course,  have  been  simply  to  divert  censure  from  himself.  There  are,  how- 
ever, circmnstances  suggestive  of  another  reason. 

Nicholas  Sharpenham,  though  a  mercer,  is  not  described  as  "  of  Lon- 
don," neither  is  his  name  to  be  found  in  the  list  of  the  leading  mercers  of 
London  supplied  by  the  complainant  Lombards.  Further,  not  one  of  his 
mainpernors  is  a  Londoner,  and  two  of  them  were  persons  of  importance. 
They  are  all  bracketed  in  C  as  belonging  to  the  county  of  Surrey.  One  of 
them,  Braghing,  then  represented  Southwark  in  parhament,  and  another, 
Plummer,  was  elected  for  the  county  in  1360.  It  is  well  known  that  the 
vexatious  restrictions  imposed  by  the  towns  upon  handicraft  and  commerce 
had  the  effect  of  driving  trade  into  the  country.  This  tendency  had  been 
enhanced  by  the  pressure  of  royal  and  local  taxation  upon  a  town  popula- 
tion very  greatly  diminished  by  the  great  pestilence  of  1348-49.^^  What 
the  city  lost,  the  suburbs  gained.  The  incidents  here  narrated  suggest  that 
Sharpenham  and  the  inhabitants  of  Southwark  sympathized  rather  with 
the  Lombards  than  with  the  citizens,  and  that  his  arrest  and  imprisonment 
at  the  instance  of  Henry  Cove,  a  leading  city  mercer,  and  of  a  city  official, 
were  the  outcome  of  resentment  on  account  of  the  part  taken  by  him. 

The  feeling  of  the  citizens  is  evident  enough  from  the  history  of  the  case. 
Some  six  months  after  the  release  of  Sharpenham  upon  mainprise,  the  king, 
then  at  Sandwich,  issued  a  writ  to  the  maj'or  and  sheriiTs  ordering  them 
to  make  inquisition  into  the  riot.  It  is  entered  in  the  City  Letter-book  G 
as  "  Breve  ad  inquirendum  de  Merceris  qui  verberaverunt  Lumbardos,"  ^* 
and  is  dated  7  October,  1359.  No  further  time  was  lost.  On  the  day  fol- 
lowing, the  inquisition  was  taken  "  before  John  Lovekyn,  Mayor  of  the 
City  of  London,  and  John  de  Chichestre  and  Simon  de  Benyngton,  sheriffs 
of  the  same  city,"  -*  by  a  jury  of  twelve.  They  returned  as  their  finding 
that  on  the  Monday  next  after  the  Feast  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  in  the 
31st  year,  etc.^'  (1357),  Henry  Forester,  mercer,  Thomas  de  Meldone,  mer- 

"  See  Dr.   F.   A.   Gasquct,   The  Great  his  conjecture,  .and  it  is  more  probable  that 

Pestilence  (1893),  p.  187;    Select  Cases  in  the  riot  took  place  .at  the  time  of  the  popu- 

the  Star  Chamber  (1.50!>-1544),  p.  ciii.  lar  festivities  wliich  accompanied  and  fol- 

"  Liber  Albris,  i,  ()21.  lowed     the    ceremony    of  "Setting     the 

2"  Lovekyn  was  elected  mayor  in  1.358.  Watch  "on  St.  John's  Eve,  23  June,  and  on 

At  that  time  the  mayors  w-ere  elected  on  the  eveof  the  feast  of  St.  Peterand  St.  Paul 

the  13th  October,  being  the  Feast  of  the  on  28th  June.    'i"he  Monday  following  St. 

Translation  of  St.  Edward  the  Confessor,  John's  day,  the  21th  June,  would  in  1357 

and  sworn  in  upon  29th  October,  the  mor-  l)c  2Gth  June.    In  1386  the  orders  to  the 

row  of  the  Feast  of  St.  Simon  and  St.  Jude.  Aldermen    for    setting    the    watch    and 

Liber  Albus,  i,  19,  24,  31.  marching  through  the  city  were  expressed 

"  Riley  has  a  note  that  this  was  prob-  to  lie  "  for  the  view  and  report  of  stran- 

ably  the  Decollation,  i.e.,  the  29th  August.  gers."    Mctnorials  nf  London,  \).  iHS.     Cf. 

The  dat«  of  the  riot  would  in  that  case  be  ibid.,  419,  433. 
4  September.     Riley  assigns  no  reason  for 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxxi 

cer,  and  John  Meleward,  mercer,  made  a  certain  dreadful  affray  in  the  Old 
Jewry,'*  in  the  Ward  of  Colemanstret,  in  London;  and  of  malice  afore- 
thought by  force  and  arms  did  make  assault  on  certain  persons,  namely, 
Francisco  Bochel  and  Reymund  Flamy,  Lombards,  and  did  wound,  beat, 
and  maltreat  them  and,  against  the  peace  of  our  lord  the  king,  commit 
other  enormities  against  them.  They  say  also  that  Richard  Phelip,  mercer, 
abetted  the  said  persons  in  making  the  affray  and  trespass  aforesaid;  and 
that  the  aforesaid  Richard  Phelip  was  present  when  the  deeds  aforesaid 
were  conmiitted;  but  that  the  same  Richard  did  not  strike  Francisco  and 
Reymund  aforesaid.  It  was  inquired  of  the  said  jurors,  if  any  other  persons 
had  committed  or  perpetrated  the  offences  and  excesses  aforesaid,  or  were 
present  thereat,  or  gave  aid  or  abettal  to  the  same,  or  gave  any  cause  for 
the  same.    They  said  that  to  their  knowledge  they  did  not." 

It  would  thus  appear  that  of  the  eight  persons  specified  by  the  com- 
plainants as  the  authors  of  the  outrage,  all  but  two.  Forester  and  Meldone 
or  Maldon,  were  acquitted  by  the  citizens.  Of  these  Maldon,  according  to 
the  Lombards,  had  confessed  his  guilt  before  the  council  when  first  arrested. 
Nothing  is  known  of  Forester,  save  that  he  is  said  in  document  D  to  be  at 
liberty  upon  mainprise,  and  that  he  had  fled.  But  D  gives  the  name  of 
none  of  his  mainpernors,  except  Alan  Everard,  and  is  a  mere  note  of  a  verbal 
statement  admittedly  imperfect.  Further,  it  is  not  confirmed  by  any  of 
the  Usts  of  mainpernors  in  C.  Smce,  as  Coke  insists,  mainprise  did  not 
imply  that  the  person  mainperned  had  been  in  custody,  these  facts  suggest 
the  inference  that  Forester  had  continued  to  avoid  arrest.  There  remains 
"John  Meleward,  mercer".  His  name  is  not  found  upon  the  list  of  leading 
mercers,  nor  was  he  mainperned,  nor  even  accused  by  the  complainants. 
No  mention  occurs  of  him,  save  in  this  inquisition.  It  may  well  be  that  if 
he  were  not  a  resident  in  London,  the  complainants  may  have  been  unable 
to  identify  him.  It  is  a  suggestive  circumstance  that  the  only  instances 
I  can  find  of  persons  of  this  name  are  associated  with  two  acts  of  violence. 
A  "  John  Meleward  "  was  indicted  at  the  end  of  1355  in  conjunction  with 
a  Bedfordshire  gentleman,  of  the  murder  of  John  Relleye  of  Thurleigh,  and 
of  the  robbery  of  other  persons  in  Buckinghamshire.^'  Three  years  later, 
on  26  February,  1358,  a  pardon  was  issued  to  "  John  le  Melewarde  "  of 
Gloucester  on  account  of  good  service  done  in  Brittany.  He  had  been  in- 
dicted of  the  death  of  John  de  Malverne,  of  which  he  was  now  declared 
innocent,  and  had  apparently  become  an  outlawed  fugitive  from  justice. 
It  is  entirely  consonant  with  the  associations  attached  to  this  name  that 
he  should  have  been  a  leader  in  the  attack  upon  the  Lombards  and  should 
have  become  a  fugitive  from  justice  once  more.  Since  the  citizens  were 
bound  to  return  some  one  as  guilty,  Maldon  standing  convicted  on  his  own 

"  The    English    Mercers    lived    "  in         »  16  December,  1355.    Cal.  Pat.  Rolls, 
Cheapside,  St.  Lawrence  Jewry  and  the      p.  334. 
Old  Jewry."  Stow,  ii,  258. 


Ixxxii  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

confession,  it  may  have  been  gratifying  to  their  feelings  to  be  able  to  fasten 
the  blame  upon  two  persons  shadj-  of  reputation  and  skilled  in  evading 
the  law.  As  for  the  abetter,  Richard  Phelip,  his  insignificance  has  defied 
identification.  From  such  a  finding  the  complainants  must  have  reapt  but 
meagre  satisfaction. 

PARSON  OF  LANGAR  v.  CONYNGSBY 

1361  The  petition  of  the  Parson  of  Langar  v.  Conyngshy  brings  forward  an 
appeal  on  error  in  the  court  of  chivalry.  According  to  the  allegations  of 
the  parson  the  latter  court  had  erred  in  two  counts :  first,  that  in  a  suit  for 
damages  an  award  had  been  made  in  the  absence  of  the  defendant;  secondly, 
that  the  court  had  no  cognizance  of  such  a  plea.  The  appeal  was  compli- 
cated by  the  circumstances  of  a  detention  under  duress,  and  it  was  probably 
this  aspect  of  the  case  rather  than  the  former,  that  caused  the  council  to 
give  it  attention. 

Now  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  of  chivalry,  usually  mentioned  as  the 
court  of  the  constable  and  marshal,  was  a  debated  question  at  this  tune. 
In  this  and  other  complaints  it  is  asserted  that  the  court  was  extending  its 
jurisdiction  from  deeds  of  arms  and  war  to  pleas  of  various  sort.  We 
should  have  liked  a  decision  upon  the  question  at  this  time,  but  the  council, 
being  more  concerned  with  the  release  of  the  parson  from  imprisonment 
and  the  future  good  conduct  of  his  opponent,  evaded  that  issue  by  bring- 
ing the  parties  to  an  agreement.  As  to  the  authority  of  the  court  of 
chivalry  nothing  further  was  done  until  the  reign  of  Richard  II,  when  by 
the  Statute  8  Richard  II,  c.  5,  it  was  laid  down  that  pleas  at  common  law 
should  not  be  discussed  by  the  constable  and  marshal;  and  that  their 
court  should  have  only  what  belonged  to  it.  The  intent  of  these  enactments 
was  more  clearly  stated  in  the  Statute  13  Richard  II,  c.  2,  which  limited  the 
court  to  cognizance  of  contracts  touching  deeds  of  war  outside  the  realm, 
and  to  things  of  arms  and  war  within  the  realm  which  cannot  be  deter- 
mined by  conunon  law.  Whether  under  this  statute  the  court  had  cog- 
nizance of  such  a  plea  as  tliat  appealed  by  the  parson  of  Langar,  we  are 
still  in  doubt.  But  this  doubt  is  cleared  by  the  Statute  1  Hen.  IV,  c.  14, 
that  all  appeals  of  things  done  within  the  realm  were  to  be  tried  by  conmion 
law,  and  all  appeals  of  things  done  outside  the  realm  were  to  be  tried  and 
determined  before  the  constable  and  marshal.  Whether  the  parson's 
affair  touched  a  deed  of  war  or  not,  it  certainly  occurred  outside  the 
reahn. 

Under  the  statutes  appeals  from  the  court  of  chivalry  were  invited  and 
made  easy.  The  usual  ground  taken  by  a  defendant,  as  in  the  present  case, 
was  an  exception  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court.  In  one  such  case  it  was 
held  that  a  defendant  who  submitted  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  of 
chivalry  could  not  withdraw,  but  if  defeated,  he  might  afterwards  appeal 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxxiii 

to  the  king.'  In  1399,  the  record  of  a  case  in  this  court  was  read  in  parlia- 
ment,^ but  the  usual  method  of  the  council,  on  receiving  such  a  case,  was  to 
refer  it  to  a  commission  of  oyer  and  temiiner.^  The  judgments  then  are 
seldom  known. 

MOLYNS  V.  FIENNES 

1365  The  petition  of  Gill  de  Molyns  adds  another  illustration  of  the  warning, 
"  Put  not  your  trust  in  princes."  In  1365,  she,  then  some  three  years  a 
widow,  petitioned  the  king  and  council  against  a  claim  put  forward  by  one 
Robert  de  Fiennes,  described  as  "  of  France,"  because  born  in  that  country, 
to  the  manor  of  Wendover,  Bucks.  The  petition  and  the  Patent  Rolls 
disclose  that  the  estate  had  belonged  to  the  Fiennes  famih',  but  was  seized 
by  the  king  on  the  outbreak  of  the  war  with  France,  with  which  country, 
it  would  appear,  they  had  elected  to  cast  their  lot.  At  the  time  of  the 
seizure  the  widow's  late  husband.  Sir  John  de  jMolyns,  had  stood  high  in 
favour  with  the  king,  and  for  some  years  the  grants  enrolled  testify  to  the 
extent  of  his  services  or  of  his  rapacity.  At  the  close  of  his  life,  however, 
he  had  been  accused  of  various  acts  of  oppression,  was  thrown  into  prison, 
and  his  lands  forfeited.  Although  most  of  these  were  subsequently  restored 
to  his  widow,  the  manor  of  Wendover,  as  this  case  shews,  was  not,  but  re- 
verted to  the  claimant  Robert  de  Fiennes  of  France,  who  shortly  after- 
wards sold  it  to  Edward  III.'  Its  immediate  subsequent  historj'  associates 
it  with  notable  names.  Before  1370,  it  had  been  granted  to  William  of 
Wykeham,  bishop  of  Winchester,  who  resigned  it  in  that,  or  the  following 
year,  after  which  the  king  granted  it  to  his  rapacious  mistress,  AUce  Perrers. 
Upon  the  accession  of  Richard  II  in  1377,  her  lands  were  confiscated,-  and 
a  petition  of  her  husband.  Sir  WilUam  of  WjTidesore,  in  1381  was  unsuc- 
cessful in  obtaining  restitution  of  the  manor.'  It  was  granted  in  1388  to 
Edward,  Duke  of  York.''  The  case  was  obvaousty  beyond  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  common  law  courts  or  of  any  tribunal  but  that  of  the  king  in  council. 

UGHTRED  V.  MUSGRA^^ 

1366  The  complaint  by  Sir  Thomas  Ughtred,  and  Sir  John  and  Nicholas 
Hotham,  against  Thomas  Musgrave,  sheriff  of  Yorkshire,  in  1366,  furnishes 
an  illustration  of  a  popular  grievance  with  which,  throughout  the  thirteenth, 
fourteenth,  and  fifteenth  centuries,  the  ears  of  the  council  were  constantly 
assailed.    Thomas  Musgrave  was  probably  the  son  of  Sir  Thomas  Mus- 

'  Cal  Pat.  Rolls,  9  Richard  II,  p.  67.  »  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  14. 

»  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  452.  >  Ibid.,  130. 

'  These  abound  in  the  Patent  Rolls  *  Lipscomb,    iv,    473.      The    account 

from  the  time  of  Richard  II.  given  in  this  work  is  far  from  accurate,  as 

'  Abbrevialio    Rotulorum     Originalium  a  comparison  with  the  documents  here 

(1810),  ii,  316.  cited  wiU  shew. 


Ixxxiv  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

grave,  a  soldier  and  courtier  who  in  1350  was  summoned  to  the  house  of 
lords.  He  was,  therefore,  a  person  of  influential  station,  apart  from  his 
office.  So  also  were  the  complainants,  the  father  of  Sir  Thomas  Ughtred 
being  a  knight  of  the  Garter  and  having  from  1343  to  1364  sat  in  the  house 
of  lords  b}^  summons.  Sir  John  Hotham  was  a  member  of  a  distinguished 
Yorkshire  family,  probably  the  great-nephew  of  John  Hotham,  bishop  of 
Ely,  chancellor  1318-20,  and  son  of  Sir  John  Hotham,  dubbed  a  knight  of 
the  Bath  in  1327.*  Nicholas  Hotham  was  presumably  of  kin  to  him.^  The 
charges  against  the  sheriff  were  maUcious  arrest,  false  imprisonment,  an 
endeavour  to  entrap  the  complainants  into  an  attempt  to  abuse  the  forms 
of  law,  and  the  extortion  of  money.  The  legal  snare  alleged  to  have  been 
laid  for  the  plaintiffs  was  a  suggestion  that  they  should  arrange  for  a 
collusive  indictment  of  themselves  and  secure  an  acquittal  from  a  jury  to 
be  packed  by  the  sheriff.  This  charge  was  also  the  substance  of  a  complaint 
by  Sir  Simon  de  Heserton,  member  of  parhament  for  the  county,  and  one 
William  Craunsewj'k,  about  whom  nothing  is  known.  Taken  together  these 
complaints^  are  a  serious  attack  on  the  judicial  powers  then  generally 
exercised  by  the  sheriffs  in  their  respective  counties. 

Now  the  sheriff's  tourn,  or  circuit  through  the  hundreds  of  the  county, 
took  place  twice  a  year.  In  the  twelfth  century  the  sheriffs  were  apparently 
endeavouring  to  enlarge  their  jurisdiction,  for  the  Assize  of  Clarendon  in 
1166  directs  that  persons  charged  before  them  with  murder  or  robberj^, 
and  their  accessories,  should  be  sent  before  the  king's  justices  for  trial,  and 
the  Assize  of  Northampton  in  1176  extends  this  provision  to  tliieves  (§  7). 
Finally,  Magna  Carta  (c.  24)  lays  down  that  no  sheriff  is  to  hold  pleas  of 
the  crown.  From  this  date,  the  sheriff's  tourn  was  held,  not  to  try  prison- 
ers, but  to  take  indictments  against  them,  like  the  inquest,  still  surviving, 
held  before  the  coroner,  on  which  a  man  can  be  put  on  his  trial.  But  the 
sheriffs  seem  to  have  been  ingenious  in  the  invention  of  abuses  of  power. 
The  Statute  of  Westminster  the  Second  in  1285,^  recites  extortions  by  them 
from  persons  falsely  charged  with  having  been  indicted  in  their  tourns,  to 
check  which  indictments  were  ordered  to  be  sealed  by  a  jury,  and  to  be  kept 
in  dupHcate,  one  copy  by  the  jury  indicting.'  Nevertheless,  in  1314,  the 
commons  of  Suffolk  were  petitioning  the  king  and  his  council  for  redress 
against  false  indictments  preferred  by  subordinate  officials  at  court  leets 
and  at  sheriffs'  tourns  "de  fere  avantage  a  leur  Mestres."  *  The  complain- 
ants were  referred  to  the  chancery;  but  in  the  following  year,  at  the 
Parliament  of  Lincoln,  a  serious  effort  was  made  to  check  the  evil  by  re- 
quiring that  the  sheriffs,  and  also  their  subordinates,  the  hundredors,  should 

'  The  pleadings  speak  of  the  plaintiff      v,  33;    W.  A.  Shaw,  The  Knights  of  Eng- 
as  "  Johan  de  Hothum  Chivaler  le  fitz,"      land,  i,  125. 
p.  56,  infra.  '  These  complaints  have  not  survived. 

»  T.   C.   Banks,   Dormant  and  Extinct  *  13  Ed.  I,  c.  13. 

Baronage  (1807),  i,  346:   The  Genealogist,  '  1  Ed.  Ill,  st.  2,  c.  17. 

•  Rot.  Pari  i,  293  b. 


INTRODUCTION  IxXXV 

be  men  of  substance  in  their  respective  counties.'  The  outcry  against  false 
indictments,  by  which  "  loyal  folk  were  often  grieved  and  evilly  im- 
prisoned," rose  again  in  1327,  when  the  king's  justices  were  ordered  to  take 
cognizance  of  such  cases.*  The  particular  grievance  in  this  instance  was 
that  the  sheriffs  put  compulsion  upon  persons  to  prefer  indictments,  and 
this  may  be  the  secret  of  the  numerous  inquests  to  which  the  complainants, 
Ughtred  and  the  Hothams,  allege  that  they  were  vexatiously  subjected. 
So  persistent  were  the  complaints  that  in  1330  the  king  and  council  took 
the  drastic  measure  of  removing  all  the  sheriffs  and  their  subordinates 
throughout  England  and  putting  them  on  their  trial  before  a  legal  com- 
mission.' The  enactment  of  1327  that  "  in  every  countj^  good  men  and 
lawful  which  be  no  maintainers  of  evil  or  barretors  in  the  county  should 
be  assigned  to  keep  the  peace,"  '"  thereby  bringing  into  existence  the 
county  magistracy,  further  reduced  the  influence  of  the  sheriffs;  while  in 
1330,  the  Act "  which  estabhshed  "  keepers  of  the  peace  "  throughout 
England  forbade  the  sheriff  to  let  to  bail  or  mainprise  those  indicted  before 
them.  Nevertheless,  the  sheriffs  were  still  recognized  as  "  keepers  of  the 
peace,"  though  second  only  to  the  new  officials  who  presently  attained  the 
style  of  "  justices  of  the  peace."  "  It  is  to  be  noted  in  this  connexion  that 
Musgrave  in  his  defence  is  careful  to  mention  that  he  was  one  of  the 
justices  of  the  peace." 

Now  the  charges  against  Musgrave  were  the  more  credible,  in  that  they 
were  not  the  first  of  the  kind  heard  against  the  sheriff  of  York.  Just  a  few 
years  before,  in  1358,  there  is  the  following  entry  on  the  Close  Roll:  "  To 
the  sheriff  of  York  (Peter  de  Nuttle).  Order  under  pain  of  £100  to  desist 
from  extortions,  grievances,  and  injuries  inflicted  by  hun  contrary  to  the 
great  charter  and  other  statutes:  as  the  said  charter  and  statutes  contain 
that  no  sheriff  or  bailiff  shall  hold  his  tourn  except  twice  a  year  and  that  in 
due  and  customarj'  place,  to  wit  once  within  a  month  after  Easter  and  once 
within  a  month  after  Michaelmas,  and  if  any  sheriff  do  otherwise  he  should 
lose  his  tourn  for  that  time,  that  sheriffs  should  take  indictments  by  in- 
dented roll,  one  part  to  remain  with  indictors  and  the  other  with  him  who 
would  take  the  inquisition,  so  that  indictments  may  not  be  concealed;  and 
now  the  king  has  learned  from  people  of  the  county  that  the  sheriff  holds 
his  tourns  as  often  as  and  whenever  he  pleases  without  the  customary 
places,  takes  indictments  and  inquisitions  in  private  places  without  any 
indenture,  under  colour  of  which  indictments  he  causes  many  men  of  the 
county  to  be  taken  and  imprisoned  at  liis  pleasure  until  he  has  exacted 
heavy  fines  and  ransoms  for  their  mainprise."  '^   Sheriff  Nuttle  was  ordered 

'  Rot.  Pari,  i,  343  b;  353  a;  Statutes  of  '»  1  Ed.  Ill,  c.  16. 

the  Realm,  i,  174.     Statutum   Lincoln'  de  "  4  Ed.  Ill,  c.  2. 

Vice-ComUihus,  confirmed  in  1328  by  the  "  Rot.  Pari,  ii,  64  b. 

Statute  of  Northampton,  2  Ed.  Ill,  c.  4.  "  P.  57,  infra. 

»  RM.  Pari,  ii,  9  b,  12  a.  »  Cal.  Close  Roll,  32  Ed.  Ill,  8  Nov., 

»  Ibid.,  60  a.  p.  534. 


IxXXvi  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

further,  on  pain  of  £1,000  to  deliver  under  seal  all  indictments  for  felony, 
etc.  made  before  him,  and  these  were  to  be  brought  before  the  king's 
council  and  then  given  to  the  justices  of  gaol  delivery.''  Several  of  the 
sheriff's  ministers,  we  learn,  were  afterwards  indicted  before  justices  of 
oyer  and  terminer,  and  according  to  a  precept  were  to  be  removed  from 
office."  The  sheriff  himseff  was  given  a  day  to  be  before  the  king's  coun- 
cil,'^ but  whatever  may  have  been  done  on  that  occasion,  we  do  not  know." 
In  the  case  of  Musgrave  the  council  gave  the  charges  a  complete  hearing. 

The  defence  appears  to  rest  in  part  upon  a  statute  of  1331,"  though  it 
is  not  expressly  cited.  The  sheriff  charged  the  complainants  with  robberj% 
affraj's,  and  what  is  now  called  blackmail;  allegmg  that  he  had  ample 
grounds  for  suspicion.  The  statute  of  1331,  after  reciting  the  Statute  of 
Winchester  of  1285,-"  enacts  that  suspicious  strangers  passing  at  night 
are  to  be  arrested  and  delivered  to  the  sheriff,  who  is  to  keep  them  in  ward 
until  the  coming  of  the  justices,  that  is,  of  the  royal  judges.  But,  as  a 
"  keeper  of  the  peace,"  his  powers  were  far  more  extensive  than  those  of 
the  county  magistrate  of  today.  By  a  statute  of  1360,-'  from  which,  ac- 
cording to  Lambard,^^  the  "  keepers  of  the  peace  "  first  acquired  the  higher 
title  of  "  justices,"  he  was,  as  such,  authorized,  as  one  of  a  standing  com- 
mission, "  to  pursue,  arrest,  take  and  chastise  offenders,  rioters,  and  all 
other  barrators."  As  sheriff,  therefore,  he  was  empowered  to  arrest  the 
defendants  as  nightty  marauders,  and  as  justice  of  the  peace  to  "  chastise  " 
them.  Lastly,  he  pleads  a  special  commission  directed  to  him  by  the  king 
"  that  he  should  make  arrest  and  execution  of  those  who  committed  such 
robberies  and  affrays,  or  otherwise  he  would  be  held  as  a  maintainer  of  the 
said  robbers  and  malefactors."  To  the  extremest  lengths  against  persons 
so  influentially  connected  he  did  not  venture  to  go,  but  contented  himself 
with  imprisoning  them  in  the  jail  at  York,  releasing  them  only  upon  heavy 
bail  and  exacting  a  fine  from.  Thomas  Ughtred's  servant,  whom  he  is  ac- 
cused of  having  tortured,  contrary  to  law,^^  with  the  object  of  fabricating 
evidence  against  the  master. 

With  the  estabhshment  of  the  magisterial  courts  of  quarter  sessions  in 
1388,"  the  sheriffs'  tourn  became  insignificant,  except  as  an  engine  of 
extortion,  which  it  remained  for  another  hundred  years.  Among  the  sheriffs' 
devices  was  that  of  not  bringing  their  prisoners  before  the  justices  of  assize, 

"  Cal.  Close  Rolls,  32  Ed.  Ill,  13  Nov.,  Hist,  of  the  Criminal  Law  (1883),  i,  113. 

p.  478.  ^'  Bracton  expressly  laj's  it  down  that 

"  Ibid.,  4  Jan.,  1359,  p.  482.  a  prisoner  should  not  be  bound  or  chained, 

"  Ibid.,  4  Jan.,  1359,  p.  540;   also  548.  except  where  there  was  a  danger  of  his 

"  Nuttle  was  not  removed  from  office  escape,  "  Ne  vidoatur  coactus  ad  aliquam 

until  30  Sept.,   13.59,  when  he  was  sue-  purgationem  suscipiendam."    F.  137,  §  3. 

ceeded  by  Thomas  Musgrave.  Fortescue's  spirited  denunciation  of  the 

'»  5  Ed.  Ill,  c.  14.  practice  of  the  Civil  Law  to  extract  con- 

'"  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  i,  97.  fession  by  torture  is  in  his  De  Laudibus, 

"  34  Ed.  Ill,  c.  1  (1360).  c.  xxii.    (Ed.  A.  Amos  [1825]  p.  228.) 
«  Eirenarcha,  p.  3.    Sir  J.  F.  Stephen,  "  12  Richard  II,  c.  10. 


INTRODUCTION  IxXXvii 

but  detaining  them  in  jail,^'  as  Musgrave  is  accused  of  doing,  and  of  charg- 
ing them  excessive  fees.^^  These  methods  of  oppression  were,  it  is  easy 
to  see,  the  outcome  of  the  practice  of  receiving  indictments.  Whereas 
indictments  had,  in  the  original  contemplation  of  law,  been  bona  fide  pre- 
sentments of  facts  by  neighbours  personally  acquainted  with  them,  and 
concerned  for  the  redress  of  the  wrongs  involved,  the  sheriffs  had  invented 
a  system  of  indictments  preferred  by  creatures  of  their  own,  living  at  a 
distance  from  the  persons  indicted  and  in  no  way  cognizant  of  the  subject- 
matter  presented.  During  the  weak  government  of  Henry  VI  these 
malpractices  increased,-'  and  they  were  the  first  mischiefs  assailed  by 
Edward  IV's  first  parliament  in  1461.  The  whole  nefarious  machinery  of 
oppression  is  ruthlessly  laid  bare  by  the  preamble  of  this  statute,  which 
illustrates  the  practices  imputed  to  Musgrave  in  this  case.  "  Whereas  many 
of  the  king's  faithful  liege  people,  as  well  spiritual  as  temporal,  by  the  in- 
ordinate and  infinite  Indictments  and  Presentments,  as  well  of  Felony, 
Trespass,  and  Offenses,  as  of  other  things,  which  of  long  time  have  been  had 
and  used  within  the  counties  of  this  Realm,  and  taken  before  Sheriffs  for  the 
Time  being  in  the  Counties  severally,  their  Under-Sheriffs,  their  Clerks, 
BaiUffs,  and  Ministers,  at  their  Tourns  or  Law  Days  holden  before  them 
severally  in  the  Counties,  which  Indictments  and  Presentments  be  often 
times  affirmed  by  Jurors  having  no  Conscience,  nor  any  Freehold,  and  little 
goods,  and  often  by  the  servauntz  menialx  and  Bailyffs  of  the  said  Shirrefs, 
and  their  Under-Sheriffs,  by  which  Indictments  and  Presentments  the  said 
lawful  liege  People  be  attached,  arrested  by  their  Bodies,  and  put  in  Prison 
by  the  said  Sheriffs,  Under-Sheriffs,  their  Clerks,  Bailiffs,  and  Ministers  to 
the  great  duresse  of  their  Persones;  and  they  so  being  in  Prison,  by  the  said 
Sheriffs,  Under-Sheriffs,  their  Clerks,  Bailiffs,  and  their  Ministers  are  con- 
strained to  make  grievous  Fines  and  Ransoms,  and  levy  of  them  great 
Fines  and  Amerciaments  for  the  said  Indictments  and  Presentments,  in 
great  Hindrance  and  utter  undoing  of  the  said  liege  People;  after  which 
Fines,  Ransoms,  and  Amerciaments  so  made  and  levied  by  the  said  Sheriffs, 
Under-Sheriffs,  Clerks,  Bailiffs,  and  their  Ministers,  the  People  aforesaid 
be  inlarged  out  of  Prison,  and  the  said  Indictments  and  Presentments  be 
imbeziled  and  withdrawn."  This  time  the  axe  was  laid  to  the  root  of  the 
evil.  The  power  of  the  sheriffs  to  arrest  or  fine  any  persons  indicted  at 
their  tourns  was  withdrawn.  All  indictments  at  the  tourn  were  to  be 
transferred  to  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  at  the  next  sessions,  who  were  em- 
powered to  award  process  against  the  offenders  so  indicted.^*  Stripped  of 
its  power  either  to  try  or  to  accuse,  the  sheriff's  tourn  became  practically 
obsolete.^' 

"  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  662  b  (1411).  "  Rot.  Pari,  v,  493  b.    Stats.  1  Ed.  IV, 

«  Ibid.,  V,  110  a.    Stat.  25  Henry  VI,  c.  2  (1461). 

c.  9  (1445);   see  also  ibid;  c.  10.  "  Sir  J.  F.  Stephen.    Hist,  of  the  Crimi- 

"  Rot.  Pari,  iv,  406  a;    450  a  (1432,  nal  Law,  i,  84. 
1433). 


IxXXviii  CASES   before   the    KING'S    COUNCIL 

It  is  particularly  unfortunate  that  in  this  case  the  judgment  of  the  council 
is  so  mutilated  that  only  its  general  tenor  can  be  arrived  at;  that  is,  a  con- 
demnation of  the  sheriff  in  damages,  and  a  vindication  of  the  innocence  of 
Ughtred  and  the  Hothams.  What  makes  the  defects  the  more  lamentable 
is  that  the  date  of  the  judgment  does  not  appear.  The  only  date  we  have 
is  19th  April,  1366,  the  "  quindene  "  on  which  the  petitions  were  filed. 
Parhament  in  this  year  met  on  4  Maj^,  and  was  dismissed  a  week  later. 
The  receivers  and  triers  of  petitions  were  nominated  on  the  opening  day. 
There  do  not  appear  to  have  been  any  definite  limitations  of  time  for  the 
sittings  of  the  council  as  a  judicial  tribunal.  But  we  know  that,  as  early 
as  1426,  the  traditional  practice,  followed  at  a  later  date  by  the  Star  Cham- 
ber, was  to  sit  in  term  time.^"  Nor  is  there  any  reason  to  suppose  that  in 
1366  the  transaction  of  judicial  business  by  the  council  was  any  less  expe- 
ditious than  it  appears  to  have  been  at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century." 
Now  in  the  year  1366,  Easter  Terra  began  on  22nd  April  and  ended  on 
4  June;  while  the  succeeding  term,  Trinity  term,  began  on  10  June,  and 
ended  on  1  July.  If,  therefore,  this  case  was  tried  with  such  dispatch  as 
there  is  some  reason  to  assume,  the  judgment  was  probably  deUvered  by 
or  before  the  last  mentioned  date.  But  the  displacement  of  Musgrave  on 
13  May  indicates  that  it  reached  a  speedier  hearing. 

The  need  for  dwelling  upon  this  point  will  now  be  seen.  In  the  Patent 
Roll  of  26  October,  1366,^-  occurs  the  following  entry,  remarkable  in  view 
of  the  judgment  before  us.  "Westminster,  Oct.  26.  Pardon  to  Thomas 
Oughtred  'chivaler'  indicted  before  John  Knyvet  and  his  fellows,  justices 
of  Oyer  and  Terminer  in  the  County  of  York,  of  having,  with  other  thieves 
unknown,  robbed  William  Randeman  of  Richemond  at  Balderly  'in  the 
Brome '  of  100  s.  of  silver  and  a  horse  with  20  s.  on  Thursday  after  All  Saints 
in  the  31st  year;  '^  of  having,  with  others  unknown,  robbed  Alexander  de 
Barton  at  Buttrehowe  by  Flawath  of  £14  in  gold  and  silver  and  a  horse 
worth  20  s.  on  Tuesday  after  the  Epiphany  in  the  thirty-ninth  year;'*  and 
of  having,  with  others  miknown,  robbed  Peter,  servant  of  Haynekyn 
Weland,  at  Polles  in  the  forest  of  Galtres,  of  a  horse  and  a  bundle  of  wollen 
cloths  of  scarlet  and  other  striped  cloths,  on  Tuesday  after  Martinmas  in 
in  the  twenty-sixth  year''  of  the  king's  suit  for  the  said  robberies  and 
felonies,  and  of  any  consequent  outlawries. 

Afterwards,  on  30  October  following,  Thomas  de  Beverlee,  William  de 
Dalton,  Robert  de  Garton,  Thomas  de  Wilton,  and  Wilham  de  Brunby  of 
the  county  of  York  mainperned  in  the  chancery  for  the  good  behaviour  of 
the  said  Thomas  Oughtred." 

The  commission  of  "  John  Knyvet  and  his  fellows  "  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Patent  Roll,  dated  from  Westminster  on  20  June,  1366.'*   His  fellows  were 

»»  Select  Cases  inlhe  Star  Chamber  (1902),  "  Thursday,  2  November,  1357. 

p.  Ixviii.  "  Ibid.,  p.  Ixix.  "  Tuesday,  13  January,  1366. 

«  Cal.  Pat.  RolUs,  40  Ed.   Ill,   pt.  ii,  «  Tuesday,  13  November,  1352. 

m.  25,  p.  319.  "  Cal  Pat.  RoWs,  40  Ed.  Ill,  p.  288. 


INTRODUCTION  Lxxxix 

Henry  de  Percy,  Roger  de  Clifford,  William  de  Fyncheden,  and  William  de 
Wychyngham.  The  conmaission  is  one  of  Oyer  and  Terminer  in  the  comi- 
ties of  York  and  Westmoreland,  "  touching  all  felonies,  trespasses,  con- 
spiracies, extortions,  oppressions,  falsities,  grievances,  and  excesses,"  etc. 
A  commission  issued  at  Westminster  on  20  June  could  not  well  have  been 
executed  in  Yorkshire  before  July.  It  has  been  seen  that  there  is  some 
ground  to  conjecture  that  before  Ughtred  appeared  to  these  indictments 
he  had,  in  his  case  against  the  sheriff,  already  secured  the  judgment  of 
the  council  in  his  favour.  It  may  well  be  supposed  that  he  then  and  there 
availed  himself  of  this  favourable  tide  of  fortune.  Musgrave  was  defeated 
and  in  disgrace  and  Ughtred  was  probably  armed  with  the  king's  pardon 
before  he  went  northwards  to  plead  guilty  to  these  indictments.  It  can 
scarcely  be  doubted  that  the  sheriff  had  cause  to  suspect  a  man,  on  his  own 
confession  guiltj'  of  three  liighway  robberies,  of  the  other  offences  laid  by 
public  scandal  to  his  charge."  The  amazing  thing  is  that  Ughtred  was  in- 
fluential enough,  both  in  his  own  county  and  in  London  to  extricate  him- 
self from  charges  which,  if  they  were  true,  must  have  made  him  the  terror 
of  the  country-side,  and  which,  even  if  they  were  false,  still  left  liim  under 
others  which  were  true  and  scarcely  less  grave.  It  is  difficult  not  to  feel 
some  sympathy  with  the  sheriff  whose  displacement  from  office,  as  has 
been  noted,  dates  from  13  May.    Of  the  Hothams  we  hear  no  more. 

LOWESTOFT  v.  YARMOUTH 

1378-80  The  counter-petitions  of  Lowestoft  and  Yarmouth  are  incidental  to  a 
prolonged  conflict  of  local  interests,  but  are  not  without  constitutional  sig- 
nificance. In  consequence  of  the  silting-up  of  the  haven  of  Yarmouth, 
which  the  townsmen  in  1346  endeavoured  to  clear  by  cutting  a  new  en- 
trance, vessels  had  been  compelled  to  take  in  and  discharge  their  cargos  in 
Kii-kley  Road.  This  is  described  in  an  Inquisition  ad  quod  damnum  of 
1370,'  as  "  a  certain  place  in  the  sea,  near  the  entrance  of  the  haven  of  the 
same  town  "  (Yarmouth).  It  would  appear,  however,  that  the  name  ex- 
tended southwards  over  an  indeterminate  area,  as  far  even  as  a  mile  south 
of  Lowestoft,  now  known  as  Lowestoft  South  Roads,  some  ten  miles  distant. 
The  lading  and  discharge  of  vessels  being  carried  on  at  such  a  distance 
from  Yannouth  facilitated  the  evasion  of  the  customs  duties  out  of  which 
the  town  maintained  its  fortifications  and  paid  its  dues  to  the  crown.  Upon 
petition  of  the  townsmen,  therefore,  Edward  III  granted  a  charter,  dated 
22  August,  46  Ed.  Ill  (1372),  annexing  Kirkley  Road  to  Yarmouth.  The 
charter  also  prohibited  the  lading  or  discharge  of  cargo  or  of  any  herring, 
or  other  merchandise,  within  seven  ^  leagues '  of  the  town,  unless  the  goods 

'  Printed  in  E.  Gillingwater,  Hist,  of  '  The  league  was  not  a  statutory  mea- 

Lowestoft  (1790)  p.  122.  sure  of  length  and  was  usually  estimated 

'  See  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,   18  Aug.,   1377  at  about  three  Roman   miles.      "  Leuca 

(p.  50),  and  Cal.  Charter  Rolls,  v,  224.  occurs  somewhat  frequently  in  Anglo-Latin 


XC  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

SO  laden  or  discharged  were  the  property  of  the  person  so  lading  or  dis- 
charging. "  All  letters  granted  to  the  town  of  Lowestoft,  or  to  the  men  of 
the  same,"  were  by  the  same  instrument  revoked. 

This  interference  with  the  course  of  trade,  the  diversion  of  which  from 
Yarmouth  was  beneficial  to  Lowestoft,  naturally  provoked  resentment. 
It  ran  counter  to  the  general  policy  of  parliament,  which  in  1351  had  passed 
a  statute  affirming  the  principle  of  unrestricted  trade,  "  notwithstanding 
any  franchises,  grants,  or  custom  used  ...  to  the  contrary."  *  In  1376 
a  petition  was  presented  to  the  king  by  the  counties  of  Suffolk,  Essex, 
Cambridgeshire,  Huntingdonshire,  Lincolnshire,  Northamptonshire,  Bed- 
fordshire, Buckinghamshire,  and  Leicestershire  praying  for  a  restoration  of 
Uberty  so  far  as  the  herring  trade  was  concerned.^  In  response  to  this,  the 
annexation  of  Kirkley  Road  to  Yarmouth  was  revoked  ^  (24  April,  1376). 

In  the  following  year  (1377)  an  inquisition  ad  quod  damnum  was  sent 
out  by  the  town  of  Yarmouth  alleging  its  inabihtj^  to  pay  the  crown  dues 
and  taxes  unless  its  franchises  were  restored.'  Upon  this,  a  commission  of 
inquirj^  which  had  been  issued  by  Edward  III  and  his  council,  but  which 
had  lapsed  with  his  death,  was  revived.*  Presumably  upon  the  report  of 
this  commission,  the  matter  came  before  the  council,  during  the  ascendency 
of  John  of  Gaunt,  Duke  of  Lancaster,  on  6  April,  1378,  "  and  consideration 
had  of  the  losses  sustained  by  the  town,'  and  the  further  damage  which, 
if  it  were  left  desolate,  might  arise  on  a  sudden  invasion  by  the  king's 
enemies,"  a  provisional  order  was  made  that  Yarmouth  should  again  en- 
joy its  franchises  in  Kirkley  Road  imtil  the  next  parhament.'"  In  the 
meanwhile  a  fresh  inquiry  was  to  be  instituted  by  a  more  important  body 
consisting  of  seven  commissioners,  headed  bj''  the  earl  of  Suffolk.  These 
were  instructed  to  visit  Kirkley  Road,  Yamiouth,  and  Lowestoft  and 
to  certify  the  king  and  council  at  the  next  parliament,  which  met  on 
20  October,  1378,  at  Gloucester.  On  7  October  of  that  year  the  com- 
missioners had  sat  at  Yarmouth  and  on  the  following  day  at  Lowestoft. 
They  reported  that  Yarmouth  was  a  place  of  defence,  while  Lowestoft 
was  unindosed,  and  that  it  would  be  for  the  public  advantage  that 
Yannouth  should  have  its  charter  restored."  It  is  certain  that  the 
Parliament  of  Gloucester  was  adverse  to  the  class  of  privilege  asserted 
by  Yarmouth.''    It  was  also  strongly  opposed  to  John  of  Gaunt.     The 

law  books  (Bracton,  Fleta,  etc.);  it  is  dis-  the  part  played  by  John  of  Gaunt,  see  p. 

puted  whether  in  these  works  it  means  one  xcv,  infra. 

mileortwo."  Oxford  English  Dictionary S.V.,  '  GilHn(!;\vater,  p.  128. 

league.     See  also  Gillingwater,  p.  125,  n.  «  Cal.  I'al.  Rolls,  18  Aug.,  1377,  p.  60. 

In  the  Ordinance  of  Herrings  of  1357,  the  '  This  is,  perhaps,  an  allusion  to  the 

word  is  "  lewes,"  and  in  the  Slalutes  of  attack  by  the  French  on  the  Yarmouth 

the  Rtalm,  i,  354,  is  translated  "  miles."  fishing  fleet  at  Michaelmas,  1377.    Chron- 

*  25  Ed.  Ill,  St.  3,  c.  2.  icon  Angliae  (1874),  p.  170. 

»  Rot.  Pari,  ii,  334.  '"  Cal.  Pat.  Rolh,  12  April,  1378,  p.  188. 

«  Ibid.,    p.    330.     The    revocation    is  "  GiUingwater,  p.  128. 

printed  in  Gillingwater,  p.  128,  n.    As  to  "  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  47,  49. 


INTRODUCTION  XCl 

commons  complained  that  the  dearness  of  herring  there  had  previously 
attracted  the  attention  of  parliament;  they  recalled  the  inquiries  already 
held,  and  they  petitioned  the  king  "  to  make  due  amendment  for  the 
profit  of  the  whole  realm."  "  Taken  in  connexion  with  the  petition  for 
freedom  of  trade  generally  "non  obstante  nullc  chartre  faite  a  contraire 
avant  ces  heures,"'^  carried  in  the  same  parliament  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
the  opposition  to  Yannouth  was  dominant  and  that  the  formal  expression 
of  the  royal  assent  was  a  practical  negative  to  the  real  object  of  the  peti- 
tion, greater  freedom  of  trade.  A  new  charter,  dated  at  Gloucester,  14 
November,  2  Richard  II  (1378),  was  issued,  granting  to  the  townsmen  of 
Yarmouth  "to  have  and  enjoj^  all  their  franchises  as  well  as  they  had 
them"  before  the  revocation  of  1376.'^  It  may  be  taken  to  have  been 
the  defiance  of  parUament  by  John  of  Gaunt. 

The  proclamation  at  Lowestoft  of  the  new  charter  led  to  riots  and  the 
opposition  renewed  its  energies.  When  parhament  met  at  Northampton  in 
November,  1380,  the  inhabitants  of  Norfolk  and  Suffolk  invoked  the  prin- 
ciple laid  down  in  the  Parliament  of  Goucester,  "  that  grants  by  charter 
or  letters  patent  contrary  to  statutes  of  general  utility  should  be  of  none 
effect."  '*  They  roundly  declared  that  the  charter  recently  granted  had 
been  in  despite  of  that  statute  and  such  an  one  as  the  parliament  of  1376 
had  repealed  because  "qu'il  feust  damageouse  et  grevouse  as  Communes 
d'Engleterre."  ''  The  burgesses,  they  complained,  would  "  not  allow  the 
said  conmions  at  anj^  time  of  the  year  to  buy  or  sell  victuals  or  merchan- 
dise "  in  Kirkley  Road.'*  A  third  commission  was  issued  in  28  April, 
1381,'^  again  under  the  earl  of  Suffolk's  ascendency,  but  this  time  including 
the  name  of  Robert  Tresihan,  appointed  in  the  following  year  chief  justice 
of  the  king's  bench.  It  was  the  year  of  the  Peasants'  Rising,  which  broke 
out  at  the  end  of  May.  Yarmouth  had,  as  has  been  seen,  secured  the 
favour  of  John  of  Gaunt,  who  was  particularly  hateful  to  the  rebels.^  A 
band  of  them  marched  upon  the  town  and  compelled  the  burgesses  to  sur- 
render their  obnoxious  charter.  This  they  cut  into  two  pieces,  one  of  which 
they  exhibited  in  various  places  in  Suffolk  to  demonstrate  their  sympathy 

"  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  49.  that  this  principle  was  laid  down  in  the 

"  Ibid.,  47.  Parhament    of    Northampton    and    con- 

"  A  translation  of  this  charter  is  given  firmed  in  that  of  Gloucester.     But  the 

by  Palmer  (p.  23),  who  ascribes  it  to  1379.  Parhament  of  Northampton  was  held  in 

But  inasmuch  as  parhament  only  sat  at  November,  1380,  two  years  after  that  of 

Gloucester  from  20  October  to  16  Novem-  Gloucester.    See  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  75. 

bar,  1378,  and  the  king,  judging  from  the  "  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  95. 

"  Fcedera,"   was   only   there    between   8  "  Rot.   Pari,  iii,   95.     By  the  charter 

October  and  18  November,  while  in  1379  trade  was  thrown  open  during  the  fair. 

parhament  was  held  in  London,  this  must  See  ibid.,  iii,  49. 

be  a  mistake,  perhaps  arising  out  of  the  "  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  4  Richard  II,  p.  633. 

fact  that  the  date  2  Richard  II  covers  28  April,  1381. 

from  22  June,  1378-21  June,  1379.  «»  E.  Powell,  The  Rising  in  East  Anglia, 

'8  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  p.  633,  28  AprU,  1381.  (1896),  p.  59. 

The  recital  makes  the  mistake  of  saying 


XCll  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

with  the  public  welfare  as  opposed  to  arbitrary  privilege.^'  The  commis- 
sion did  not  get  to  work  until  the  rising  was  at  an  end.  On  23  September, 
it  held  an  inquisition  at  Lowestoft  and  another  on  26  September  at  Nor- 
wich. The  resolutions  passed  by  the  juries  were  that  the  privileges  claimed 
by  Yarmouth  were  opposed  to  common  law,  as  well  as  to  the  statute  passed 
by  the  parhament  of  Gloucester  in  favour  of  freedom  of  trade;  that  the 
wind  frequently  made  it  difficult  for  ships  lying  in  Kirkley  Road  to  beat 
up  to  Yaniiouth,  so  that  they  were  compelled  to  make  jettison  of  their 
cargos  of  herring;  that  the  townsmen  of  Yarmouth,  on  the  authority  of 
their  charter,  prevented  the  purchase  and  sale  of  victuals  and  merchandise 
by  the  general  pubUc  at  any  time  of  the  year  in  Kirkley  Road ;  that  ships 
bringing  in  their  cargos  of  herrings  to  Yarmouth  occupied  twice  as  much 
time  as  if  they  discharged  in  Kirkley  Road;  and  that  Yarmouth  could 
afiford  to  pay  its  dues  to  the  crown  even  without  its  privileges.^^  Parha- 
ment, which  met  on  16  September,  1381,  was  besieged  by  "  the  supphcation 
of  the  conmions  of  Norfolk,  Suffolk,  and  all  England  "  against  the  pro- 
visions of  the  charter  of  1378.  On  the  last  day  of  its  sitting,  25  February, 
1382,  the  king  and  council  revoked  the  charter  so  far  as  the  franchise  was 
concerned  which  prohibited  any  ship  to  discharge  within  seven  leagues 
elsewhere  than  at  Yarmouth  and  Kirkley  Road  or  any  fair  or  sale  of 
merchandise  to  be  held  within  the  same  distance  during  the  fishing  season.^' 
The  parhament  which  followed,  in  May,  1382,  shewed  the  same  strong 
feeling  in  favour  of  unrestricted  commerce.  Foreign  merchants  were  en- 
couraged to  trade.^^  Yarmouth  was  specially  reprobated  as  one  of  those 
seaports  in  which  the  citizen  "  hosts,"  or  supervisors  of  the  transactions  of 
strangers,  habitually  abused  their  position  and  were  warned  "  to  utterly 
cease  and  be  amoved  from  their  noyaunce  and  wicked  deeds  and  fore- 
stalhngs."  No  impediment  was  to  be  placed  either  in  the  way  of  foreigners 
or  of  denizens  to  hinder  their  traffic  in  victuals  or  fish,  "  under  the  colour 
of  any  custom,  ordinance,  privilege,  or  charter  before  made  or  had  to  the 
contrary,  which  by  tenour  of  these  presents  be  utterly  repealed."  "  Within 
two  years  and  a  half  Yarmouth  was  again  bewaiUng  the  downfall  of  its 
prosperity  and  invoking  the  aid  of  the  king.  A  petition  of  February,  1385, 
set  forth  "that  the  deprivation  of  its  franchises  had  been  followed  by  the 
depopulation  of  the  town,  "  leaving  it  desolate  and  insufficient  to  defend 
itself  against  the  king's  enemies."  ^^  In  the  following  year  (1386),  a  petition, 
to  which  it  secured  the  support  of  some  members  of  the  house  of  commons,'^ 
drew  a  graphic  picture  of  its  calamities.  Its  fee-fami  rent  and  its  tenth, 
added  to  its  expenditure  on  its  defences,  involveil  it  in  heavier  habilities 
than  any  borough  in  the  six  neighbouring  counties.    The  town  was  now  so 

"  E.  Powell,  The  Rising  in  East  Anglia,  "  5  Kichard  II,  st.  2,  c.  1   (1382)  cf. 

(1890),  p.  32.  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  142  b. 

«  Gillingwater   prints   the   inquisitions  "  6  Richard  II,  st.  1,  c.  11  (1382). 

at  length,  pp.  130-132.  "  Cal.  Pat.  RoUs,  20  Feb.,  1385,  p.  540. 

»  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  25  Feb.,  1382,  p.  106.  »  See  below,  p.  xciii. 


INTRODUCTION  XCIU 

weak,  poor,  and  wasted  (degast^) ;  and  so  scarce  of  people  that  those  who 
remained  could  not  support  the  burdens  upon  it.  The  commons,  therefore, 
pray  the  king  to  regrant  and  confinn  its  ancient  franchises.^" 

As  the  fee  farm  of  the  town,  fixed  by  King  John  at  £55,^'  was  at  hazard, 
always  a  consideration  of  moment  to  medieval  treasurers,  a  regrant  of  the 
charter  "  according  to  the  rate  heretofore  "  passed  the  privy  seal  on  20 
February,  1385,  to  stand  until  the  next  parliament.'"  Since  parliament 
did  not  confirm  the  grant  it  was  revoked  as  from  the  meeting  of  parliament 
on  the  20  October,  1385.'i  In  Uttle  more  than  a  year,  however,  Yamiouth 
again  prevailed  over  its  rivals.  A  charter  dated  28  November,  1386,  recites 
the  preceding  grants,  repeals,  etc.,  and  that  a  petition  of  the  commonalty 
of  England  represents  that  Yarmouth  supported  greater  charges  "  in  the 
fortifications  and  support  of  the  same  town  against  enemies  than  any  other 
city  or  burgh  within  six  counties  in  circuit  next  adjoining,"  which  it  would 
be  unable  to  continue  to  do,  so  "  reduced,  impoverished,  and  wasted  "  was 
it,  unless  its  privileges  were  restored.  The  charter  thereupon  annexes 
Kirkley  Road  to  Yamiouth,  revises  its  privileges  as  to  lading  and  unlading 
ships,  etc.  The  new  charter  is  not  provisional.  It  is  expressly  stated  to 
be  granted  by  the  assent  of  the  lords  upon  petition  of  the  commons,'^  an 
official  fonnula  of  questionable  veracity. 

Of  the  case  of  its  opponents  the  charter  naturally  says  nothing.  But 
among  the  petitions  to  parliament,  of  the  year  1387,''  is  one  which  is  doubtr 
less  a  clerk's  note  of  the  effect  of  the  petitions  he  enumerates,  and  runs  as 
follows:  "A  nostre  seigneur  le  Roy  et  a  touz  les  Seigneurs  en  cest  present 
Parlement  suppUent  les  Communes  des  Countes  de  Norfolk,  Suffolk,  Can- 
tebrigge,  Huntyngdon,  et  Bedford,  que  la  Bille  q'est  livree  a  nostre  dit 
Seigneur  le  Roy  et  as  autres  Seigneurs  du  Parlement  par  les  Burgeys  de 
Grande  Jememuth  ne  soit  execute  a  contraire  de  I'estatut  que  voet  que 
chescun  lige  du  Roialme  purra  franchement  achater  et  vendre  en  Citees, 
Burghes,  Portz  de  Miere  etc.  ne  encountre  un  repell  fait  en  plein  Parle- 
ment tenuz  a  Westminster  I'an  nostre  Seigneur  le  Roy  q'or  est  quint  sanz 

"  Rot.  Pari,  iij,  222  a.  and   the   former   act   declared   to   be   in 

"  To  this  Edward  III  had  added  100  s.  force.     I  can  find  no  confirmation  of  a 

a  year,  as  consideration  for  the  grant  of  the  visit  of  the  king  to  Yarmouth  in  1382.   If 

charter   of    1372,    which   sum    had    pre-  it  took  place,  it  must  have  been  between 

sumably  lapsed.    GiUingwater,  p.  121.  n.  the  meeting  of  Parliament  on  7  May  and 

'»  Cal.  Pal.  Rolh,  p.  540.    Perhaps  this  that  on  6  October.    As  the  latter  Parha- 

is   the   event   recorded    by    Palmer,    the  ment   was   followed    by    another   on    23 

editor  of  Manship,  as  follows  (p.  336):  In  February,  1383,  the  revised  charter  must 

1382  Richard  came  in  person  to  Yarmouth  in  any  ca,se  have  enjoyed  but  a  very  brief 

and    "  lykynge    verye    well    thereof,   did  existence,  and  I  have  failed  to  find  any 

graunte   them   such   privileges  as  before  notice  of  it. 
that  tyme  had  ben  by  himself  revoked  ^'  Palmer,  p.  24. 

uppon  the  slaunderous  report  of  the  men  '^  Palmer,  p.  24.     An  abstract  of  the 

of  Leistofte."    This  grant  only  continued  charter  is  given  in  Cal.  Charter  Rolls,  v, 

until  the  meeting  of  Parliament  in  the  305-306. 
following  year,   when  it  was  abrogated,  "  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  254. 


XCIV  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

I'assent  du  tout  le  Parlement."  It  will  have  been  observed  that  the  charter 
thus  objected  to  as  an  infringement  of  the  rights  of  parhament  is  dated  at 
the  end  of  November.  It  appears  probable,  therefore,  that  the  attribution 
of  1387  to  the  petition  is  an  accident,  which  may  have  arisen  from  the 
postponement  of  the  arrangement  of  the  records  of  the  parhament,  which 
was  dissolved  on  28  November,  1386,  the  date  of  the  charter,  until  the 
year  had  turned.  This  charter,  dated  28  November,  10  Richard  II  (1386), 
was  maintained  during  the  rest  of  Richard's  reign  and  during  the  reigns  of 
subsequent  sovereigns.'^  To  what  dates  in  the  chequered  story  of  this 
protracted  struggle  are  these  four  documents  to  be  assigned  respectively  ? 
The  earliest  would  seem  to  be  the  arguments  ("  instances  ")  advanced  by 
Lowestoft  against  the  grant  of  the  charter,  for  which  it  states  the  bailiffs 
and  burgesses  of  Yarmouth  to  be  "  now  "  suing.  As  it  refers  to  Edward 
III,  as  the  reigning  king's  grandfather,  it  undoubtedly  belongs  to  the  time 
of  Richard  II.  But  beyond  this  it  affords  no  clue.  The  petition  of  Lowe- 
stoft (document  B)  for  the  revocation  of  the  charter  after  it  had  been 
granted  to  Yannouth  by  Richard  II,  is  based  upon  its  first  petition,  with 
amplifications  and  additions.  It  sets  out  in  order  the  statutory  history  of 
the  controversy  under  Edward  III.  It  adds  to  the  counties  enumerated 
in  the  earlier  petition,  as  aggrieved  by  the  dearth  of  fish  imputed  to  the 
privileges  of  Yannouth,  those  of  Suffolk  and  Essex.  But  is  gives  no  indi- 
cation of  the  length  of  time  during  which  the  charter  assailed  had  been  in 
force,  nor  of  its  own  date.  We  can  only  infer  this  from  C,  the  answer  of 
Yarmouth,  which  takes  the  gravamina  of  Lowestoft  in  B,  point  by  point. 
By  this  answer  the  retrospective  limit  of  date  of  the  charter  of  which  com- 
plaint is  made  is  fixed  as  1378,  the  session  of  parliament  held  in  October  of 
that  year  at  Gloucester.  The  indorsement,  though  not  wholly  decipherable, 
indicates  that  the  case  was  heard  in  Hilary  Term  when  parliament  was 
sitting  at  Westminster.  This  limitation  would  be  satisfied  in  1380,  when 
parliament  met  at  Westminster  on  16  January,  the  Monday  after  St. 
Hilary.  At  that  date  the  charter  assailed  would  have  been  in  force  since 
John  of  Gaunt's  provisional  order  and  the  subsequent  rcgrant  of  the  charter, 
about  eighteen  months.  In  Januarj',  1382,  also,  the  parliament,  which  had 
met  on  16  September,  1381,  was  still  sitting  at  Westminster,  and  the  charter, 
though  threatened,  was  remaining  in  force.  But  since  the  indorsement 
uses  the  word  "  tcnuz,"  customarily  significative  of  the  first  meeting  of 
parliament,  the  document  C  should  probably  be  assigned  to  January,  1380, 
as  the  date  of  its  presentation  to  the  crown.  The  condition  of  a  session  at 
Westminster  opening  in  Hilary  Term  docs  not  seem  to  have  been  again 
fulfilled  until  1390,  at  which  date  the  charter  of  1386  had  become  a  securely 
established  privilege.  B  then  will  probably  have  been  draughted  about 
the  close  of  1379.  Document  D  supplies  no  further  Ught  on  this  point, 
and  is  simply  a  repUcation  to  C,  to  be  dated  1380. 

"  For  a  list  of  the  charters  see  Swinden,  pp.  760-767. 


INTRODUCTION  XCV 

If  then,  documents  B  and  C  belong  to  1379-1380,  to  what  date  is  A  to 
be  assigned  ?    That  it  is  earlier  than  B  is  evident.     It  is  less  carefully 
draughted,  and  though  B  transcribes  much  of  it,  wliile  altering  the  order 
of  its  clauses,  the  heads  of  gravamina  in  A  number  no  more  than  eight  as 
against  eleven  in  B.    It  is  also  to  be  observed  that  whereas  the  complainants 
in  B  are  anonJ^nous,  those  in  A  are  the  people  of  Lowestoft  who  are 
particularized  as  the  promoters  of  the  suit  in  50  Edward  III  (1376),  when 
the  charter  was  revoked.    It  was  therefore,  perhaps  redraughted  on  the 
frame  of  the  successful  petition  of  1376.    It  belongs,  on  the  face  of  it,  to 
the  reign  of  Richard  II  and  to  a  moment  at  which  Yarmouth  is  petitioning 
for  a  fresh  charter,  and  it  contests  in  particular  the  franchises  claimed  in 
Kirkley  Road.    It  may  be  assigned,  therefore,  to  the  early  part  of  the  year 
1378,  in  April  of  which  year,  as  has  been  seen,  John  of  Gaunt  and  the  great 
council  provisionally  restored  the  privileges  of  Yannouth  in  Kirkley  Road. 
It  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  successive  changes  of  policy  in  the  matter 
of  Yarmouth's  charter  were  due  to  nothing  more  than  idle  caprice.     The 
monkish  historian  who  was  the  author  of  Chronicon  Angliae,  though  his 
bitter  prejudice  against  John  of  Gaunt  attenuates  his  authority,  probably 
penetrates  the  secret  of  that  duke's  favour  to  Yarmouth  when  he  says  that 
he  refused  to  listen  to  the  complaints  against  it  "quia  minus  favit  populo 
quam  pecuniae."  ^^    This  was  in  1376,  when  he  is  represented  as  having 
long  resisted  the  revocation  of  the  charter,  of  which  he  secured  the  tem- 
porary restoration  two  years  later.    On  the  other  hand,  the  conmiissioners 
of  1381,  who  presented  reports  hostile  to  the  charter,  were  careful  to  add 
"  that  the  men  of  Great  Yannouth  may  sustain  and  bear  towards  our  lord 
the  king  all  charges  which  they  did  sustain  and  bear  before  the  granting 
of  the  liberties  and  privileges  aforesaid,  and  maintain  the  town,  although 
the  same  Uberties  and  privileges  should  be  revoked."  ^*    It  can  readily 
be  understood,  that  in  face  of  the  protests  of  Yarmouth,  the  Treasury 
hesitated  at  times  to  accept  this  conclusion  and  that  in  this  conflict  of 
fiscal,  local,  and  influential  private  interests  no  uniform  pohcy  could  be 
for  long  pursued.    Behind  the  fiscal  issues  stood  those  larger  ones  of  the 
constitution.    The  history  of  the  Yarmouth  charter  forms  part  of  the  breach 
between  the  crown,  represented  by  the  council,  with  the  king's  uncle  at  its 
head,  and  the  house  of  commons,  destined  to  develop,  after  a  few  years, 
into  a  fatal  struggle  between  the  king  liimself  and  the  two  houses  of  parUa- 
ment.    In  the  four  documents  printed  the  conflict  of  legal  argimient  is  best 
summarized  in  the  replication  D,  "  on  behalf  of  the  coimnonalty  of  Suffolk." 
It  will  be  observed  that  Yarmouth  endeavoured  to  obscure  the  real  issue 
by  insisting  that  at  fair  time,  when  the  bulk  of  the  herring  trade  was  trans- 
acted, no  restrictions  existed.    The  complainants,  on  the  other  hand,  repUed 
that  what  they  asked  for  was  that  trade  should  be  free  in  Kirkley  Road  at 

"  Chronicon  Angliae  (ed.  E.  M.  Thompson,  1874),  p.  95. 
'«  Gillingwater,  p.  131. 


XCVl  CASES   BEFORE    THE   KING'S    COUNCIL 

all  seasons  of  the  year,  while  they  disavowed  any  design  of  setting  up  a 
fair  there  to  the  commercial  injury  of  that  of  Yannouth.  The  "  conflict  of 
laws,"  whether  statutory  or  prerogatival,  carried  the  disputants  back  to 
the  middle  of  Edward  Ill's  reign.  By  a  general  Act  of  1354,"  no  ship 
could  be  compelled  to  enter  or  remain  in  any  port,  and  incoming  ships  were 
to  be  free  to  sell  their  merchandise  on  shipboard,  without  first  bringing  it 
to  land.  Of  this  concession  advantage  was  taken  by  the  townsmen  of 
Yannouth,  who  forestalled  the  fish  at  sea  and  combined  to  sell  to  the 
general  consumer  at  enhanced  prices.'^  When,  therefore,  the  Suffolk 
petitioners  cited  the  statute  of  1354,  prohibiting  the  exercise  of  compulsion 
upon  incoming  ships,  Yarmouth  retorted  that  the  Ordinance  of  Herring 
of  1357,  by  forbidding  sales  at  sea,  had  practically  repealed  the  earlier  act. 
The  petitioners  replied  that  neither  statute  nor  charter  could  have  con- 
templated such  consequences  as  ensued,  viz.,  that  ships  laden  with  perish- 
able cargos,  Uke  fish,  should  suffer  loss  by  being  compelled  to  go  from 
Kirkley  Road,  where  they  could  have  sold  them,  to  Yarmouth  at  seven 
leagues'  distance,  whereby  the  commonalty  suffered  loss  for  the  private 
profit  of  the  Yannouth  dealer. 

By  the  Ordinance  of  Herring  of  1357,  the  Barons  of  the  Cinque  Ports, 
in  confirmation  of  previous  rights,  were  constituted  joint  governors  with 
the  bailiffs  of  Yarmouth  of  the  yearly  fair.  A  charter,  urged  the  peti- 
tioners, which  annulled  an  agreement  approved  by  the  king,  ought  at 
least  not  to  have  been  granted  without  affording  all  parties  an  opportunity 
to  state  their  objections.  The  point  touches  form  rather  than  substance. 
The  ordinance  of  1357  distinctly  lays  down  that  only  "  the  ships  called  the 
Pykers  "  should  be  at  hberty  during  the  fair  to  buy  fish  at  Kirklej'  Road, 
and  that  the  rest  of  the  fishermen  should  not  sell  their  herring  otherwise 
within  seven  miles  of  Yarmouth,  and  with  these  provisions  the  charter  does 
not  appear  to  conflict.  Yarmouth  answers  with  the  complaint  that  in 
1376  its  charter  was  "  revoked  without  reply,"  to  which  Lowestoft  retorts 
that  it  was  "  repealed  in  full  parliament."  Whatever  the  exact  signifi- 
cance to  be  attached  to  these  words,  it  is  at  any  rate  apparent  that  it  was 
repealed  as  a  consequence  of  the  petitions  addressed  to  the  crown  during 
the  session  of  parliament  of  that  year. 

In  support  of  its  privileges  Yarmouth  appealed  to  the  ethical  code  which 
it  represented  itself  as  righteously  endeavouring  to  enforce.  For  fishermen 
to  sell  their  fish  at  Kirkley  Road,  or  elsewhere  in  the  neighbouruig  sea,  was 
"  open  forestalling,"  that  is,  a  defraud  of  the  Yannouth  consumer.  The 
petitioners  were  too  discreet  to  attempt  to  justify  "  forestaUing."  If  such 
there  were,  they  repUed,  it  could  be  punished.  The  real  delinquents  were 
the  hucksters  of  Yannouth  who  used  the  compulsion  imposed  by  their 

"  28Ed.  Ill,  c.  13.  well  set  out  by  Dr.  Cunningham  in  his 

"  Ordinance  of    Herring  of    1357,    31      Growth  of  English  Inihislry  ami  Commerce 
Ed.  Ill,  c.  1.    The  economic  situation  is      (4th  ed.,  1905)  pp.  321-322. 


INTRODUCTION  XCVIl 

charter  to  raise  prices  for  their  own  benefit.  Controversy  followed  as  to 
the  topographical  accessibiUty  of  the  town.  At  the  worst,  contended  Yar- 
mouth, goods  could  be  brought  in  by  lighters  from  Kirkley  Road;  to  which 
the  petitioners  replied  that  hghterage  was  both  dangerous  and  costly. 
Smiilarly,  pedlars  and  others  concerned  with  land-transport  were  alleged, 
and  denied,  to  find  the  town  inconvenient  of  access. 

Of  these  documents  D  is  in  a  bad  condition,  part  of  it  being  torn  away 
on  the  lower  right  side.  The  result,  as  the  transcript  shews,  is  a  number  of 
regrettable  lacunae. 

TAYLORS  V.  BREMBRE 

1386  The  stormy  political  career  and  tragic  end  of  Sir  Nicholas  Brembre, 
mayor  of  London  in  1377,  1378-79,  and  1383-84,  are  narrated  at  length  by 
the  learned  pen  of  Mr.  J.  H.  Round  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography. 
It  is  enough,  therefore,  to  say  here  that  he  was  a  partisan  of  the  absolutist 
poUcy  of  Richard  II  and  an  enemy  to  John  of  Gaunt  and  Wycliffe.  Within 
the  city  his  aims  were  oUgarchical.  He  was  a  member  of  the  wealthy 
company  of  the  grocers,  which  nmnbered  among  its  brethren  eight  alder- 
men, one-third  of  the  whole  body.'  With  the  support  of  these  and  other 
of  the  great  companies  he  sought  "  to  deprive  lesser  companies  of  any  voice 
in  the  city."  The  opposed  companies  ranged  themselves  as  the  victualhng 
and  non-victualling  trades.-  The  former  being  represented  by  the  grocers, 
fishmongers,  and  mercers.  Brembre  was  a  politician  of  the  "  mailed  fist." 
The  Rolls  of  Parliament  for  1386  contain  petitions  against  hhn  from  "  the 
folk  of  the  Mercerye  of  London,"  from  the  "  Cordwaners,"  the  Founders, 
the  Saddlers,  the  Painters,  the  Armourers,  the  Pinners,  the  Embroiderers, 
the  Spinners,  and  the  Bladesmiths.  Of  these  the  editors  of  the  Rolls  note 
that  most  of  them  are  "  imperfect,"  and  they  print  only  the  first  two.  The 
petition  here  printed  appears  to  have  been  separated  from  the  others,  and 
to  have  escaped  their  notice. 

The  Mercers'  petition  to  the  council  which  they  print,^  complains  that 
the  election  of  Brembre  as  mayor  in  1383  was  effected  by  armed  force  and 
the  slaughter  of  his  opponents;  that  he  governed  oppressively  with  a  high 
hand,  that  he  burnt  records  which  furnished  precedents  adverse  to  his 
measures.  The  petition  of  the  "Cordwaners,"  which  belongs  to  the  year 
1386,^  is  addressed  not  to  the  council  only,  but  to  the  king  and  lords 
generally.^    While  the  mercers  use  EngUsh,  the  cordwainers  prefer  French. 

'  Mr.  A.  B.  Beaven  in  his  Aldermen  of  iii,  575,  and  by  Mr.  J.  H.  Round  in  his 

the  City  of  London  (1908),  i,  359,  360,  has  article  on  Brembre. 

shewn  how  the  mistake  of  Herbert  in  his  ^  Ibid.,  i,  hv. 

History  of  the  Twelve  Great  Livery  Com-  '  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  225. 

panies,  attributing  sixteen  aldermen  to  the  *  During  the  mayoralty,  as  it  states,  of 

grocers,    arose,    a    mistake    followed    by  Nicholas  Exton,  i.e.,  1386. 

Bishop  Stubbs  (Const.  Hist.,  2nd  ed.  1878),  '  Rot.  Pari  iii,  226. 


XCVlll  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

They  complain  that  whereas  by  charter  a  fair  and  peaceable  election  is  to 
be  held  on  the  day  of  St.  Edward  the  King/  the  mayor,  John  of  North- 
ampton, was  in  1383  forcibly  ousted  from  office  by  Brembre.  It  may  be 
noted  parenthetically  that  John  of  Northampton  had  been  alderman  of 
Cordwainer  Ward.'  Brembre's  e-viction  of  the  mayor  had  been  followed 
by  the  beheading  of  a  cordwainer  alderman,  John  Costantyn,  and  the 
imprisonment  of  divers  of  the  brotherhood.  After  this  the  forcible  election 
of  Brembre  took  place,  as  complained  of  by  the  grocers.  A  reign  of  terror 
is  described  as  having  followed,  Brembre's  opponents  being  indicted  on 
trimiped  up  charges  of  felony. 

The  petition  here  printed  adds  a  new  charge  against  Brembre.  He  had, 
presumably  upon  the  ground  that  as  mayor  he  enjoyed  a  supervisory 
jvu^isdiction,  seized  the  charter  of  the  Taylors  and  Linen  Armourers,  now 
known  as  the  Merchant  Taylors'  Compan}\  The  incident  has  escaped  the 
research  of  the  historian  of  the  company,  the  late  Mr.  CM.  Clode,  and 
it  may  be  inferred  that  no  record  of  it  survives  amongst  the  company's 
muniments.  The  year  1386,  to  which  this  petition  belongs,  was  the  last  of 
Brembre's  poUtical  supremacy  in  the  city  of  London.  On  14  Nov.,  1387, 
he  was  charged  with  treason  by  the  Lords  Appellant,  impeached  on  the 
17  February  following,  and  shortly  afterwards  executed  at  Tyburn. 

PETITION  OF  THE  HANSARDS 

1389  The  Petition  of  the  Hansards  presents  a  single  stage  of  a  prolonged  hti- 
gation,  which  may  be  taken  as  typical  of  many  that  vexed  the  relations  of 
England  and  the  "  Easterhngs."  Since  1371,  there  had  been  a  continuous 
struggle  over  the  trading  privileges  of  the  Hanse,  against  whom  great 
animositj'  was  aroused.  In  response  to  popular  clamour  Richard  II  had 
suspended  their  charter  in  1378,  but  restored  it  in  1380.'  Yet  the  causes  of 
friction  remained.  Among  the  complaints  of  the  Enghsh  was  the  perennial 
grievance  that  foreigners  were  carrying  money  instead  of  merchandise  out 
of  the  covmtry;  that  they  were  keeping  inns  of  their  own  apart  from  the 
free  hostelrics  of  the  city;  that  EngUsh  merchants  were  received  in  Hanse 
towns  less  favourably  than  the  Hansards  in  England;  that  Enghshmen 
and  their  ships  were  being  arrested  and  detained  in  a  manner  calling  for 
reprisals.^  At  least,  it  was  urged,  the  Easterlings  residing  here  should  be 
required  to  give  security  that  Enghshmen  would  be  treated  as  peaceably 
and  reasonably  in  their  coimtries,  as  they  were  received  and  treated  in 
England.  A  further  grievance  that  these  and  other  foreigners  were  en- 
gaging in  an  unfair  competition  with  native  traders  in  the  sale  of  herring 
lies  behind  the  present  petition. 

'  The  translation  of  St.  Edward  the  '  Cal.  CI.  Rolls,  1   Richard  11,  p.  66; 

Confessor,  13  October.  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  52. 

'  Beaven,  i,  113.  »  Rot.  Part,  ii,  306;    Cal.  Pal.,  50  Ed. 

Ill,  pp.  389,  390,  etc. 


INTRODUCTION  XCIX 

On  the  otlier  hand,  the  Hansards  had  no  lack  of  grievance  against  the 
EngHsh.  In  spite  of  the  renewal  of  their  charter,  exempting  them  from 
paying  more  than  the  old  subsidies,  certain  new  customs  were  being 
exacted  of  them.  In  divers  towns,  they  alleged,  they  were  charged  2  s.  on 
every  last  of  herring;  they  were  not  permitted  to  find  wives  in  England; 
in  innumerable  cases  on  land  and  sea  their  merchants  were  arrested,  de- 
tained for  great  lengths  of  tune  and  their  goods  seized.'  Some  of  the  fault 
found  with  them,  they  pointed  out,  should  really  be  laid  against  the 
Prussians,  and  so  they  resented  the  way  EngHshmen  were  in  the  habit  of 
confusing  them  under  the  name  "Hansers-Prucicrs."  Besides  general  com- 
plaints, individuals  were  constantly  presenting  petitions  in  regard  to  arrests, 
detentions,  and  losses  of  goods,  for  which  in  some  cases  the  council  endeav- 
oured to  afford  rehef.  Too  often,  however,  as  in  the  case  at  hand,  the  petitions 
failed  because  of  delays  and  legal  obstacles.  Especially  when  the  payment 
of  indemnities  was  involved,  if  there  was  no  pressing  necessity  for  giving  sat- 
isfaction, the  government  was  likely  to  seek  postponements  indefinitely. 

As  to  the  trade  in  herring,  wliich  resembles  the  wool  trade  in  its  inter- 
national importance,  the  competition  of  foreigners  was  resented  by  native 
fishmongers,  because  the  foreigners  under  their  privileges  were  exempt 
from  local  dues  and  requirements  of  the  ports.  In  this,  as  in  other  trades, 
there  was  a  running  contest  over  the  question  whether  foreigners  should 
be  permitted  to  sell  by  retail  or  only  by  gross.  On  the  other  hand  the  com- 
mon people  favoured  the  trade  with  foreigners,  because  it  lowered  prices 
and  broke  into  local  monopolies.  The  great  demand  for  herring  as  an 
essential  food  supply  and  the  incessant  rise  in  prices  roused  the  people  to 
strong  expression.  According  to  a  complaint  of  the  Londoners,^  the  fish- 
mongers of  the  city  were  in  the  habit  of  seizing  the  fish,  without  bargain- 
ing or  asking  leave  of  the  owners,  and  of  then  selhng  it  at  their  own  price; 
after  selling  the  fish,  the  mongers  would  pay  the  fonner  owners  as  little  as 
they  pleased ;  the  strangers  dared  not  complain,  for  they  stood  little  chance 
of  justice  in  the  local  courts  controlled  by  fislunongers.  The  citizens  of 
London  desired  that  the  foreigners  might  have  the  king's  protection  for 
bringing  to  the  city  fresh  fish,  which  they  should  be  pennitted  to  sell  retail 
as  well  as  in  gross.  Apparently  the  men  of  PljTnouth,  described  by  the 
Hansards,  were  acting  with  the  same  motives  as  those  attributed  to  the 
fishmongers  of  London. 

The  present  petition  of  Conrad  Fynk  and  his  fellow  merchants  was  not 
the  beginning  of  their  suit.  It  is  told  how  they  had  been  to  the  council 
before,  and  had  been  promised  restitution  of  their  goods,  if  they  would  first 
obtain  letters  from  home  proving  ownership.  These  letters  being  now 
produced,  the  chancellor  and  council  ordain  that  the  money  derived  from 
the  sale  of  the  goods  in  question,  £105,  be  delivered  to  them.  As  a  receipt 
for  this  sum  the  men  afterwards  made  recognition  in  the  chancery,  but  by 
some  sHp  in  the  proceedings  the  money  was  not  paid.  In  1393,  the  king 
s  Rot.  Pari  iii,  253;  Cal.  Pal.,  15  Richard  II,  518,  etc.  «  Rol.  Pari,  iii,  141. 


C  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

wrote  a  humble  and  conciliatory  letter  to  the  magistrates  of  Liibeck,  re- 
citing the  facts  of  the  case  and  promising  restitution  of  the  £105  in  accord- 
ance with  the  judgment  of  the  council.^  Meanwhile,  Fynk  and  Heynson, 
on  charges  not  known  to  us,  had  been  arrested  and  involved  in  processes 
before  the  admiral.  In  the  spirit  of  conciUation,  these  processes  were 
suspended  and  the  men  released.  Whether  there  was  any  further  litiga- 
tion on  the  money  and  goods  in  dispute  we  are  not  informed. 

The  claims  were  not  dropped,  however,  but  after  years  of  suspense  were 
taken  up  through  diplomatic  channels.  After  an  accumulation  of  grievances 
on  both  sides  it  was  seen  at  length,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  IV,  that  a  settle- 
ment must  be  reached  if  the  profitable  trade  of  those  regions  was  not  to 
be  totally  destroyed.     Envoys  were  sent  from  England  to  Almain,  and 
from  Almain  to  England,  and  articles  of  complaint  were  formulated  on 
both  sides.    Among  the  articles  drawn  up  by  the  council  of  Liibeck  in  1405, 
and  delivered  to  the  EngHsh  ambassadors,  was  the  statement  of  claims 
arising  out  of  the  case  of  the  Hansards  in  1389.^    It  is  worth  quoting  in  full: 
Also  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  1389,  about  the  feast  of  the  Purifica- 
tion, men  of  Plymouth  seized  before  Southampton  a  ship  of  Nicholas 
Timmermann,  loaded  with  48  (sic)  lasts  of  herring,  each  worth  six 
English  pounds  at  the  time,  and  they  sold  the  said  lasts  in  WejTnouth, 
and  having  sold  them  returned  only  the  ship  with  its  equipment  to 
the  aforesaid  Nicholas  Timmennann.     Moreover,  the  said  lasts  of 
herring  belonged  to  Conrad  Vink,  Gherard  Glambek,  and  Gherard 
Buwman,  citizens  of  Liibeck,  and  Werner  Heynours,  citizen  of  Dor- 
trecht  of  the  duchy  of  Gueldres,  who  were  then  and  are  still  despoiled 
of  the  aforesaid  goods. 
To  this  article  the  Enghsh  ambassadors  in  their  answers  made  no  reply, 
and  the  authorities  of  Liibeck  returned  to  it  in  their  replication. 

Also  as  to  the  twentieth  article  no  answer  has  been  given  by  the 
ambassadors  of  England.     Wherefore  the  representatives  of  Liibeck 
ask  for  a  clearer  statement. 
To  this  the  English  replied. 

It  is  necessary  that  articles  be  prepared  specifying  names  and  cog- 
nomens, that  speedy  justice  may  be  done  to  the  complainants. 
After  this  evasion  of  the  issue  nothing  more  could  be  done  with  the  case. 
In  the  settlement  of  outstanding  claims  made  with  the  Eastlanders  in 
1410,  the  English  agreed  to  pay  the  Prussians  £10,000,  but  to  the  Hansers 
they  gave  next  to  nothing.' 

'  Concessimus  de  assensu  consilii  nos-  scries  of  documents  related  to  the  present 

tri  predict!  quod  dicte  centum  et  quinque  case. 

lit)re  eisdcm   mercatoribus   integre   resti-  °  Ibid.,  no.  329  and  333. 

tuprentur.    French  Roll,  16  Richard  II,  m.  '  The   latter   chiims   were   finally   cut 

2,  cited  in  K.  Kunz,  flanseakten  aus  Eng-  down  to  £1.53.      Fcedcra,  viii,  603.     The 

land  (1891),  no.  268,  a  work  containing  a  long  drawn  negotiations  are  vividly  told 

in  Wylie,  Reiffn  of  Henry  IV,  iv,  ch.  88. 


INTRODUCTION  CI 

ESTURMY  V.  COURTENAY 

1392  The  case  of  Esiurmy  v.  Courtenay  is  for  several  reasons  one  of  the  most 
notable  in  the  present  collection.  As  a  case  of  violence  and  oppression,  it 
was  the  first  of  a  series  of  trials,  such  as  afterwards  pertained  to  the  court 
of  Star  Chamber.  It  was  a  trial  on  criminal  charges  of  one  of  the  peers  of 
the  realm,  for  which  the  council,  apart  from  the  house  of  lords,  demon- 
strated its  competence.  Different  from  fonner  cases  of  the  kind,  the  matter 
was  given  a  complete  hearing  by  the  council.  The  record  too  is  of  un- 
usual fidness,  gi\'ing  a  vivid  narrative  of  the  proceedings  at  every  step. 
Although  the  incident  was  of  pohtical  importance,  no  entry  was  made  of 
it  in  the  Rolls  of  Parhament,  but  in  the  journal  of  the  council  for  the  15th 
year  of  Richard  II  the  following  minute  appears: 

On  23  January,  15th  j'ear,  etc.,  there  were  present  the  chancellor, 
the  treasurer,  the  bishop  of  Winchester,  the  bishop  of  Durham,  the 
bishop  of  Chester,  the  steward,  the  sub-chamberlain,  E.  Dalingrugg, 
and  Stury,  and  the  justices  and  Serjeants  of  the  king. 

And  then  it  was  agreed  that  letters  should  be  issued  to  the  earl  of 
Devonshire  summoning  him  to  come  before  the  council  to  answer  to 
certain  matters  that  should  be  explained  to  him.    And  this  (he  should 
do)  on  his  allegiance  and  under  penalty  of  whatever  he  can  forfeit  to 
the  king,  and  let  him  bring  with  him  his  servant  Robert  Yeo  under 
the  same  penalty  on  the  next  Thursday  after  Candlemas.     And  let 
another  writ  be  issued  to  Wilham  Grenville  sheriff  of  Devonshire  to 
come  on  the  same  day  under  the  same  penalty.' 
The  beginning  of  the  trouble  here  alluded  to  lay  in  a  quarrel  between 
Robert  Yeo,  a  retainer  of  the  earl  of  Devonshire,  and  Wilham  Wyke  a 
tenant  of  the  earl  of  Huntingdon.    During  the  previous  year  William  Wyke 
had  obtained  writs  against  the  earl  of  Devonshire's  retainer,  which  the 
latter  had  treated  with  contempt.    Writs  to  the  sheriff  were  Ukewise  in- 
effective because  he  was  in  league  with  the  same  Robert  Yeo.    One  day 
Wyke  was  caught  in  an  ambuscade  and  horribly  murdered  at  the  instiga- 
tion, it  is  alleged,  of  Yeo.     Indictments  of  the  persons  imphcated  were 
obtained  before  the  justices  of  the  peace,  who  were  in  turn  threatened  by 
the  earl.    And  so  the  quarrel  spread  until  it  involved  many  of  the  gentle- 
men of  Devonshire,  and  was  Ukely  to  cause  a  ci\al  war  in  the  neighbor- 
hood.   It  was  clearly  a  case  of  maintenance,  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the 
earl  to  sustain  the  quarrel  of  another,  coming  under  the  statutes  20  Edw. 
Ill,  c.  4  and  1  Richard  II,  c.  7.^    There  was  also  the  offence  known  as  em- 
bracerj',  an  attempt  to  influence  a  jurj'  corruptly,  but  this  had  not  as  yet 
been  so  fully  laid  down  in  the  statutes.'    Undoubtedly  the  case  belonged 
to  the  council  according  to  an  act  of  parhament,  1  Richard  II,  which  con- 

»  The  King's  Council,  492.  '  Mentioned   in   Statute   20   Ed.    Ill, 

»  See  TayUrr  v.  Rochester,  p.  2,  n.  7.  c.  6;   38  Ed.  Ill,  i,  c.  12. 


Cll  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

ceded  all  cases  invoh'ing  "  such  high  personages  that  right  could  not  be 
done  elsewhere."  * 

When  the  matter  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  council  on  10 
January,  a  commission  was  issued  to  arrest  Robert  Yeo  and  his  servant 
John  Langford.^  But  for  the  same  reasons  as  before  the  commission  failed 
of  its  purpose.  The  next  move  was  the  issue  of  a  subpoena  on  23  January 
to  the  earl  and  the  sheriff  as  has  already  been  told.  This  was  effective. 
The  parties  came  and  the  trial  began  on  the  day  set,  8  February.  From 
this  point  the  record  itself  is  the  best  narrative.  The  method  of  trial  was 
an  examination  into  the  charges  made  by  William  Esturmy,  nominally  in 
behalf  of  the  justices  of  the  peace,  that  the  earl  had  threatened  the  justices 
and  jurymen  with  violence.  One  by  one  the  witnesses,  nine  in  all,  were 
brought  in,  sworn  and  questioned  in  turn  as  to  the  words  they  had  heard 
from  the  earl.  Any  divergences  of  testimonj^  or  prevarications  under  the 
circumstances  would  have  been  readily  detected.  But  they  were  all,  in- 
cluding even  the  earl's  own  messenger,  in  substantial  agreement  that  he 
had  uttered  the  threats  attributed  to  him.  After  six  days  the  earl  hunself 
was  examined  in  the  presence  of  a  score  of  lords  in  the  council  chamber. 
He  could  make  no  defence;  although  he  clamied  that  his  words  to  the 
jurors  were  intended  as  reproaches  rather  than  threats.  He  threw  himself, 
therefore,  on  the  king's  mercy.  The  council,  consisting  at  the  time  of  his 
peers,  with  unusual  severity  condemned  hun  to  prison  until  he  should  pay 
fine  and  ransom,  at  the  same  tune  in  view  of  his  royal  blood  and  previous 
good  conduct,  it  conmiended  him  to  the  king's  mercy.  It  may  be  with 
excessive  leniency,  the  king  granted  the  earl  a  full  pardon  for  every  crime 
heretofore  perpetrated  by  him,^  and  a  few  years  later  pardoned  John 
Langford  who  had  committed  the  murder.'  It  may  be  thought  that  the 
earl's  submission  and  humiliation  was  sufficient  punishment  for  all  that 
he  had  done,  but  it  is  surprising  to  learn  that  during  the  week  when  the 
trial  was  pending,  on  12,  14,  and  15  February,  the  earl  of  Devonshire  is 
recorded  as  present  in  the  council,  the  same  as  other  lords,  deliberating  on 
the  king's  business.'  With  such  tolerance  toward  wrongdoing  shown  by 
the  lords  of  the  council,  it  is  not  strange  that  the  statutes  of  livery  and 
maintenance  for  the  next  century  failed  of  enforcement. 

But  the  pardon  of  the  earl  of  Devonshire  was  not  the  last  word.  On 
the  same  day,  15  February,  the  king  took  dramatic  advantage  of  the  situa- 
tion to  exact  from  all  the  lords  then  present  new  pledges  of  loyalty.  The 
incident  is  described  in  a  minute  of  the  council  in  the  following  words: 

*  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  21.  '  This  pardon  was  granted  at  the  in- 

'  The    commissioners    were    William  stance  of  the  duke  of  Brittany  in  1397. 

Esturmy,   James   Chudlegh,   John   Gren-  Cal.  Pal.,  20  Richard  II,  145. 

ville,  sheriff  of  Devon,  and  Thomas  Credy,  '  The  minutes  of  the  council  for  these 

king's    serjeant-at-arms.      Cal.    Pat.,    15  days  are  given  in    The  King's   Council, 

Richard  II,  82.  492-494. 
'  Issued  on  the  same  day,  15  February. 

Cal.  Pal.  Rolls,  24. 


INTRODUCTION  Clll 

And  then  all  the  above-named  lords  gave  assurances  to  the  king  in 
the  following  manner.  The  three  uncles  of  the  king,  the  prelates,  and 
other  lords  promised  in  good  faith  and  assured  the  king  in  his  hand 
that  they  would  from  this  time  forth  be  his  loyal  subjects  and  would 
do  nothing  privily  or  openly,  by  themselves  or  through  their  followers, 
against  the  king,  nor  would  they  (act)  one  lord  against  another,  or 
against  the  people  oppressivelj^,  except  by  law.  And  if  peradventure 
any  lord  or  other  man  of  whatever  estate  should  act  to  the  contrary, 
(they  promised)  that  all  the  lords  would  stand  by  the  king  in  compel- 
ling the  refractory  one  to  obey  the  king  and  his  laws.  And  in  case 
any  lord  feels  himself  aggrieved,  he  will  not  take  redress  by  force 
against  the  law,  but  will  pursue  by  conmion  law  or  complain  to  the 
king  in  order  to  gain  redress  and  remedy,  so  that  the  laws  of  the  realm 
may  be  maintained  between  the  king  and  his  lieges  of  whatever  estate. 
And  the  king  on  his  part  for  the  complete  comfort  of  his  lords  and 
other  lieges  of  his  own  will  and  good  heart,  to  cultivate  good  and  com- 
plete devotion  in  his  reahii,  has  promised  on  the  word  of  a  king  to  do 
no  wrong  or  damage  to  any  lord  or  other  of  his  heges  for  anything 
that  has  happened  heretofore,  for  which  he  may  have  reason  to  be 
moved  against  them  or  any  one  of  them.  And  it  is  not  his  intention 
to  restore  any  of  those  who  have  been  adjudged  in  full  parhament  in 
his  realm  or  in  any  place  belonging  to  the  crown.' 


TENANTS  OF  WINKFIELD  v.  ABINGDON 

1393  The  petition  of  the  Tenants  of  Winkfield  v.  the  Ahhey  of  Abingdon  reveals 
a  local  uprising  of  peasants  twelve  years  after  the  great  revolt.  Berkshire 
was  not  one  of  the  counties  that  had  taken  a  leading  part  in  this  movement,' 
but  now  in  1393  the  peasants  in  the  manors  of  Winkfield,  Hurst,  and 
Whistley  were  combining  to  resist  the  extortions,  as  they  allege,  of  the 
Abbot  of  Abingdon.  First  the  abbot  proceeded  against  the  tenants,  com- 
plaining that  his  bondmen  were  rebelliously  withdrawing  their  services 
and  were  confederating  unlawfully  ^  by  oath  in  assemblies  to  resist  him 
and  his  ministers.  On  this  infonnation  the  king  issued  a  commission  of 
oyer  and  terminer,  dated  14  May,  1393,  with  power  to  judge  and  imprison 
all  who  might  be  convicted.' 

The  tenants  did  not  lack  intelligent  leaders  who  inquired  into  the  title 
of  the  abbey.*  In  moving  the  present  petition  they  followed  the  course  that 
other  peasants  had  taken,  attacking  the  claims  of  the  abbey  to  be  lord  of  the 

•  Ibid.,  494.  '  Cal.  Pat.  16  Ric.  II,  294. 

'  A  few  examples  are  given  in  Victoria  *  Saward  and  Somerton  who  requested 

County  Hist,  ii,  190  f.  an  exemplification  from  Domesday  Book 

'  The  Statute  5  Ric.  II,  i,  c.  6,  forbade  (ibid.,  231)  are  mentioned  in  our  record  as 

all  such  assemblages.  being  made  to  suffer  for  the  peasants. 


CIV  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

manor,  and  declaring  themselves  to  be  not  bondmen  but  tenants  of  the 
crown  domains.'  Tenants  of  ancient  demesne  they  could  not  claim  to  be. 
This  claim  the  king  caused  to  be  investigated  by  the  inquisition  here  set 
forth  (p.  83),  which  supported  the  contention  of  the  tenants  of  Wink- 
field  but  not  those  of  the  neighboring  manor  of  Hurst.  As  to  the  merits  of 
the  case,  we  know  that  in  Domesday  Book,  Winkfield  is  entered  as  a  tene- 
ment of  the  abbej'.^  But  according  to  a  deed  of  1348,  there  had  been  a 
later  transfer,  by  which  Old  Windsor,  New  Windsor,  Winkfield,  and  Ascot 
became  parcel  of  the  castle  and  manor  of  Windsor.''  Though  the  abbot 
enjoj'ed  the  principal  part  of  the  revenues  of  the  manor,  he  held  these  not 
as  lord  but  by  special  gift  of  the  king.  Henceforth  Winkfield  is  men- 
tioned as  the  king's  manor,  but  Hurst  was  confinned  as  a  tenement  of  the 
abbot.* 

The  tenants  of  Winkfield  were  encouraged  to  make  a  further  statement 
of  their  grievances  (p.  84),  but  whether  they  ever  obtained  redress  for 
their  ills  is  doubtful.  Apparently  the  king  was  more  concerned  in  prevent- 
ing any  reduction  of  their  services.  In  1397,  and  again  in  1398,  he  sent 
forth  a  commission  to  inquire  into  the  conceahnent  and  withdrawal  of 
dues  pertaining  to  his  manor  of  Winkfield  and  also  the  oppression  of  his 
tenants  there.^  Here  the  matter  is  dropped.  Another  result,  due  not 
entirely  to  the  uprisings  in  Berkshire,  was  the  Statute  17  Rich.  II,  c.  8, 
passed  in  1394,  reciting  that  unlawful  assemblies  and  riots  against  the 
king's  peace  have  occurred,  forbidding  such  assembhes  in  the  future,  and 
requiring  sheriffs  to  suppress  them  with  the  full  power  of  the  counties. 

ATTE  WODE  v.  CLIFFORD 

1402  The  case  of  Atte  Wode  v.  Clifford  is  another  case  of  maintenance  and 
embracery,  illustrating  various  phases  of  the  extensive  general  problem. 
The  principal  defendant,  James  Clifford,  Esquire,  of  Gloucestershire,  was  a 
turbulent  character,  who  was  accustomed  to  league  with  other  men  of  the 
county,  with  a  view  to  preying  upon  their  weaker  neighbours.  Their  method 
was  to  seize  an  estate  at  an  opportune  moment,  and  then  by  force  and  fraud 
to  thwart  anj^  legal  processes  begun  against  them.  Sometimes,  as  in  the 
present  case,  by  holding  a  man  in  durance,  they  would  extort  from  him 
enfeoffments  to  their  advantage.  Yet  while  charges  of  this  kind  were  laid 
against  him,  Clifford  was  an  honoured  man  in  the  county,  serving  on  the 
king's  commissions  and  keeping  the  castle  of  Caldecote.  Among  the  cona- 
plaints  which  he  was  from  time  to  time  called  to  answer,  was  one  in  1399, 

'  The  same  claim  had  been  put  forward  "  Exch.  Domesday  (1783),   i,  59;    Vic. 

by  the  tenants  of  the  abl)ey  of  Meiiux  in  County  Hist,  i,  340. 
13.56,  giving  rise  to  a  prolonged  Htigation.  '  Anct.  Deeds,  i,  A  153. 

Chron.  de  Melsa  (Rolls  Ser.),  iii,  127-142.  »  Cal.  Pat.  19  Ric.  II,  669. 

For  a  trial  of  such  a  claim  sec   Year  '  Il)id.,  21  Ric.  II,  310,  433. 

Books  (Selden  Soc),  5  Ed.  II,  125-129. 


INTRODUCTION  CV 

that  he  had  entered  upon  an  estate  without  process  of  law,  ejected  the 
tenants  and  occupied  their  lands  '  in  a  manner  very  similar  to  that  described 
in  the  present  case.  In  the  parliament  of  1402  there  were  two  petitions  of 
different  parties  proceeding  simultaneously  against  him.  One  was  of  the 
parson  of  Frethorn,-  who  alleged  that  James  Clifford,  having  purchased  the 
manor  of  Frethorn,  laid  claim  to  the  church,  forcibly  ejected  the  parson  and 
entangled  him  bj'  all  sorts  of  legal  processes  in  order  to  dispossess  him. 
Although  the  defendant  had  promised  under  bonds  in  the  chancery  to  give 
up  the  church,  still  he  would  not  allow  the  parson  to  have  access.  For  this 
offence  Clifford  was  to  answer  before  the  council,  but  of  the  result  nothing 
further  is  known.  The  other  petition  was  that  of  John  atte  Wode,  or  At- 
wood,  with  which  we  are  now  concerned.  Atwood  was  a  lesser  landholder 
of  the  county,  a  tenant  in  the  manor  of  Chedworth,  an  hereditary  estate  of 
the  Beauchamps.  Unfortunately  for  Atwood,  the  death  of  Thomas  Beau- 
champ  earl  of  Warwick  deprived  him  of  his  natural  defender.  Since  the 
manor  was  at  the  moment  in  the  king's  hand,  before  it  was  delivered  to  the 
next  heir,  the  case  was  the  more  readily  heard  by  the  council.  Already  in 
the  previous  year  Atwood  and  his  wife  had  presented  a  petition  to  the  king, 
but  the  only  result  was  a  commission  of  inquisition,  followed  by  another 
commission,  which  for  reasons  presently  to  be  given  had  failed  in  its  duty.' 
Again  they  frame  a  petition  addressing  it  on  this  occasion  to  the  lords  and 
commons  in  parliament.  Their  allegations  are  that  Clifford  had  been  the 
maintainor  of  Anselm  Guise  in  persecuting  them  for  the  past  seven  years; 
that  under  a  false  indictment  of  felony  Atwood  had  been  held  in  prison  for 
three  j'ears  and  a  half,  while  his  enemies  seized  his  lands  and  goods.  Al- 
though he  was  afterwards  acquitted  of  the  felony,  he  had  not  yet  recovered 
his  property.  The  conmiission  of  inquisition  appointed  in  the  previous 
year,  they  allege,  had  accomphshed  nothing  because  the  bailiff  and  jurors 
of  the  county  were  in  collusion  with  the  defendants.  The  commissioners 
had  taken  two  inquests,  the  first  of  which  the  complainants  had  challenged, 
the  second  they  were  not  permitted  to  challenge.  Under  these  conditions 
they  affimi  that  it  is  impossible  to  obtain  justice  in  the  county  and  ask  for  a 
hearing  in  parliament.  A  hearing  was  granted,  but  after  the  first  stage  of 
the  proceedings  parliament,  with  customary  caution,  turned  the  matter 
over  to  the  council  for  detennination.  As  the  record  carefully  states,  the 
council  then  proceeded  not  on  its  own  authority  but  "by  authority  of 
parliament."     The  defence  had  little  to  say.    The  examination  then  was 

'  A    commission    was    appointed    to  '  The  first  commission  was  issued  22 

enquire    into    the    claim    (Cal.    Pal.    22  July  to  William  Beauchamp,  John  Berke- 

Ric.  II,  5S5),  but  it  was  ineffective,  and  in  ley  and  John  Derhurst,  who  were  to  en- 

1401  another  commission  was  appointed  quire  into  the  matter  and  certify  the  king 

to  enquire  into  the  same  matter   (ibid.  and  council  (Cal.  Pal.  2  Hen.  IV,  552); 

2  Hen.  IV,  5.52).  the  second  commission,  mentioned  in  our 

'  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  574.  record,  was  26  August  to  John  Berkeley, 

etc.  (ibid.,  554). 


CVl  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

quickly  passed  over,  and  the  award  given  unreservedly  in  favour  of  the 
complainants.  The  lands  in  question  were  to  be  fully  restored,  and  all 
enfeoffments  and  transactions  affecting  the  lands  made  since  the  ejectment 
of  John  Atwood  were  to  be  annulled.  To  ascertain  the  amount  of  goods 
carried  off  and  the  damage  done,  a  commission  of  inquiiy  was  appointed  to 
report  at  a  later  day,  when  the  parties  were  to  appear  again  before  the 
council. 

As  often  happened,  the  award  of  the  council  was  good  in  itself,  but 
deficient  in  execution.  Part  of  the  lands  in  question,  we  know,  were 
restored  to  John  Atwood  and  his  wife.''  But  further  restorations  were 
checked  by  James  Clifford,  who  caused  Atwood  to  be  murdered  in  February, 
1405,  by  a  hired  assassin.'  Anselm  Guise  was  also  imphcated,  and  the 
goods  of  both  men  were  declared  forfeited  for  their  not  appearing  to 
answer.  Clifford  was  afterwards  convicted  of  the  crime  in  the  king's  bench, 
and  amerced  in  £1000.  But  before  the  end  of  the  next  year,  in  return  for 
his  payment  of  200  marks,  the  king  pardoned  him  of  all  outlawries  and 
debts.^  At  this  price  Clifford  could  afford  to  continue  his  depredations." 
How  far  the  heirs  of  John  Atwood  ulthnately  recovered  their  lands  and 
goods  has  not  been  ascertained. 

Wlf'THUM  V.  MEN  OF  IL\MPEN 

1418.  The  petition  of  Hugh  de  Wythiim  v.  Men  of  Katnpen  illustrates  another 
stage  of  the  perennial  problem  of  indemnities  and  reprisals.  In  the  treaty 
made  with  the  Grand  Master  of  the  Teutonic  Knights  in  1410  an  attempt 
had  been  made  to  mitigate  the  evils  of  reprisals  by  an  agreement,  that  no 
subject  of  the  king  should  be  arrested  by  the  Grand  Master  by  reason  of 
injuries  committed  upon  his  subjects  by  Englishmen,  and  similarly  that  no 
subject  of  the  Grand  Master  should  be  arrested  in  England  for  any  such 
cause.  If  injuries  should  be  committed,  it  was  agreed  that  the  king  or  the 
Grand  Master,  as  the  case  might  be,  would  give  satisfaction;  but,  if  claims 
should  be  made,  and  if  after  the  lapse  of  six  months  all  satisfaction  should 
be  refused,  it  was  allowed  that  a  proportional  amount  of  goods  might  be 
taken  from  the  property  of  Enghshmen  or  Teutons,  according  to  the  cir- 
cumstances.' Thus  the  customary  law  of  reprisals  was  hardly  altered. 
To  settle  outstanding  clauns  the  sum  of  10,000  marks  was  to  be  paid  by  the 
King  of  England  to  the  Grand  Master  as  an  indcnmity.  Two-thirds  of  this 
sum  remained  unpaid  when  Henry  V  came  to  the  throne,  and  inuncdiately 
there  were  claims  and  counterclai:ns  for  captures  at  sea  to  trouble  the 

*  Hugh    Waterton    restored   whatever  '  Ibid.,  8  Hen.  IV,  284. 

had  come  to  him.    Close  Roll,  5  Hen.  IV,  '  In  1408  he  was  pardoned  of  an  out- 

m.  11.  lawry   for   not   appearing   in    the   king's 

'  This  occurred  at  Gyldenacre  in  the  bench  to  answer  in  another  case  of  tres- 

parish  of  St.  Martin  in  Middlesex.     Cal.  pass.    Ibid.,  9  Hen.  IV,  407. 

Pat.  6  Hen.  IV,  511;  8  Hen.  IV,  280.  '  Fadera,  viii,  0G3  f. 


INTRODUCTION  CVU 

relations  of  England  and  Prussia.  The  first  incident  was  when  the  new 
king,  immediately  on  hearing  of  his  father's  death,  was  sailing  from  Bor- 
deaux to  England  anil  overtook  two  Prussian  hulks  off  the  coast  of  Brittany. 
The  English  sent  men  to  board  them  and  examine  their  charters,  but  the 
strangers  showed  fight  and  delivered  a  regular  attack  in  which  Englishmen 
were  killed.  The  Prussians,  however,  were  captured  and  brought  to  South- 
ampton as  prizes  before  the  court  of  admiralty.^  In  the  same  year  there 
came  before  the  council  ambassadors  from  Prussia  seeking  a  settlement  of 
their  outstanding  financial  claims.'  They  were  told  to  put  the  matter  in 
writing  and  were  given  responsory  letters  to  take  back  to  the  Grand  Master. 
When  the  Prussian  ambassadors  returned  in  1415  they  hardly  gained  a 
hearing,  and  were  put  off  by  the  chancellor  from  day  to  day  with  evasive 
answers.^  At  the  same  time  the  government  made  some  effort  to  check  the 
depredations  that  were  preventing  a  concentration  of  strength  upon  the 
war  with  France.  In  one  case  twelve  Englishmen  were  arrested  for  taking 
part  in  a  robbery  of  the  goods  of  a  Prussian,  to  be  detained  imtil  they 
should  give  satisfaction  for  their  share  of  the  400  marks  damages.*  The 
statute  of  Henry  IV  was  reenacted  that  strangers  in  England  shall  be 
treated  in  the  same  manner  as  denizens  of  England  are  treated  in  foreign 
parts  ;^  this  may  be  regarded  as  either  a  threat  or  a  promise.  Probably  the 
greatest  grievance  of  the  foreigners  during  these  years  was  caused  by  the 
king's  seizure  of  a  number  of  ships  from  Kampen,  Dortrecht  and  a  dozen 
other  foreign  towns  for  his  militarj'  necessities;  the  record  of  a  promise  of 
payment  to  the  owners  was  vacated,  we  are  told,  "because  nothing  was 
done."'  Under  these  conditions  it  is  not  surprising  to  learn  that  English- 
men like  Hugh  of  'Wythum  suffered  losses  in  Kampen  and  other  towns. 
We  should  like  to  know  whether  the  claim  of  Hugh  for  a  reprisal  was 
granted,  but  after  the  matter  was  given  to  a  commission  of  oj'er  and 
terminer  it  is  not  heard  of  again. 

DUVAL  V.   COUNTESS  OF  ARUNDEL 

1421  The  complaint  of  William  Duval  a  merchant  of  Rouen,  that  his  cargo  of 
wines  had  been  confiscated  by  agents  of  the  Countess  of  Arundel,  illus- 
trates a  conflict  of  jurisdiction  that  was  continually  arising  between  the 
central  government  and  local  lordships.  It  was  naturally  the  interest  of 
local  lords  to  seize  stonn-tossed  vessels,  calhng  them  wreck,  in  spite  of  the 
law  laid  down  again  and  again  that  there  was  no  wreck,  if  anyone,  a  man,  a 
dog  or  a  cat,  escaped  ahve  out  of  the  ship.'  Likewise  if  a  sailor  fell  out  of  a 
ship  and  drowned,  the  lord  of  the  place  would  claim  the  ship  as  deodand, 

»  Rot.   Pari,  iv,    12;    Wylie,  Reiffn  of  '  Cal.  Pat.  1  Hen.  V,  64. 

Henry  V,  118.  «  Statutes  5  Hen.  IV,  c.  7,  9;  4  Hen.  V, 

*  Nicholas,  Proceedings,  ii,  132.  2,  c.  5. 

*  Hanserecesse,    vi,    148-150;     Wylie,  ^  Cal.  Pal.  5  Hen.  V,  115. 

494  f.  »  Stat.  Westm.  1st,  3  Ed.  I,  c.  4. 


CVllI  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

although  the  law  was  clear  that  if  the  vessel  was  on  the  sea,  it  should  not  be 
adjudged  deodand.^  Against  claims  of  this  character,  it  became  customary 
in  the  treaties  of  the  fifteenth  century  to  include  articles  acknowledging 
the  right  of  mariners,  when  driven  by  storm  or  rough  water,  to  seek  refuge 
in  ports  and  havens  without  making  payments  of  any  kind.  But  it  was  by 
no  means  easy  for  the  king  to  assert  the  higher  law  against  tenacious  local 
customs.  In  the  present  petition  it  is  intimated  that  the  officers  of  the 
countess  had  been  unwilling  to  obey  the  king's  letters.  Since  the  matter 
was  referred  to  a  conm;iission  of  oyer  and  tenniner  the  outcome  of  the  case 
is  unknown.  But  in  another  case  arising  in  1422,  as  soon  as  it  was  learned 
that  a  ship  had  been  driven  into  a  port  of  the  countess  and  there  stranded, 
the  king  promptly  sent  thither  his  serjeant  at  arms  to  seize  everything 
contained  in  the  ship  and  keep  safely.'  Whether  the  ship  was  a  wreck  or 
not,  would  then  be  judged  in  the  king's  court. 

DANVERS  V.  BROKET 

1433  The  case  of  Danvers  v.  Broket  is  an  mcident  that  occurred  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  career  of  Robert  Danvers,  later  a  noted  justice  of  common 
pleas.  His  biography  has  been  given  a  place  in  Foss,  Judges  of  England,^ 
but  it  is  incomplete  at  this  point.  Foss  was  unacquainted  with  the  case  but 
noticed  the  following  entry  hi  the  minutes  of  the  council. 

"  On  the  10th  day  (of  July)  in  the  Uth  year,  at  Westminster,  there 

was  read  and  passed  a  certain  act  signed  by  the  hands  of  the  lords  of  the 

council  and  remaining  on  file  in  the  office  of  the  privy  seal  among  other 

memoranda  of  the  same,  which  begins  as  follows:  Be  it  remembered-  etc." 

The  act  in  question  was  the  judgment  of  the  council  in  the  case  now 

presented. 

The  case  was  over  the  charge  of  Danvers  that  liis  opponents  in  a  law 
suit  had  rased  and  rewritten  a  part  of  a  record  affecting  a  claim  in  dispute. 
Now  the  rasing  of  a  record  by  any  official  had  been  made  a  penal  offence, 
and  jurisdiction  in  such  a  matter  had  been  definitely  given  to  the  council 
by  the  Statute  8  Rich.  II.'  Moreover  the  forging  of  deeds  had  been  carried 
to  such  an  extent  that  people  everywhere,  it  is  said,  were  disturbed  over 
their  titles.^  Other  statutes  dealt  with  various  aspects  of  the  evil.^  In  the 
present  case,  it  is  proved,  the  parties  instead  of  altering  tlie  record  in  ques- 
tion, devised  the  singular  scheme  of  erasing  certain  letters  and  then  re- 

'  Rot.  Pari,  ii,  346,  372;  iii,  25.  two  years  of  such  default,   he  shall  be 

'  Cal.  Pal.  10  Hen.  V,  443.  punished  by  fine  and  ransom  at  the  king's 

'  IV,  428.  will  and  satisfy  the  injured  party.    Stat. 

'  Nicolas,  Proceedings,  iv,  166.  8  Ric.  II,  c.  4. 

•  If  any  judge  or  clerk  V)e  sufficiently  *  Preamble,  Stat.  1  Hen.  V,  c.  3;   also 

convicted  before  the  king  and  council,  by  7  Hen.  V,  c.  2. 

the  manner  and  form  which  to  the  same  '  Stat.   14  Ed.  Ill  lays  down  that  a 

king  and  council  seem  reasonable,  within  record  may  be  challenged  and  amended  at 


INTRODUCTION  CIX 

writing  the  same  letters,  so  as  to  make  it  appear  that  an  alteration  had  been 
made.  They  would  thus  not  invalidate  the  record,  but  hoped  to  cast 
discredit  on  the  opposing  attorney. 

Danvers  had  as  yet  no  influence  at  court,  that  he  was  permitted  to  come 
without  any  petition  and  lay  his  grievance  before  a  full  meeting  of  the 
council.  The  rasure  of  a  record  indeed  was  a  matter  of  public  interest 
which  the  council  desired  to  hear.  After  the  opening  statement  of  Danvers, 
and  an  exhibition  of  transcripts  of  the  record,  two  clerks  of  the  chancery 
were  examined,  who  pointed  to  Wilham  Broket,  a  clerk  of  the  exchequer  as 
the  probable  culprit.  Complete  proof  of  his  guilt  was  then  presented  by 
Danvers  who  had  skillfully  drawn  Broket  into  an  incriminating  corre- 
spondence. The  letters  were  now  produced  in  court.  Faced  with  the 
evidence,  Broket  broke  down  and  confessed  that  at  the  instigation  of  his 
chent  John  Lydyard  he  had  rased  the  record  just  as  his  accuser  had  said. 

For  this  cause  Broket  was  forthwith  removed  from  his  place  in  the 
exchequer  and  disquahfied  from  ever  serving  in  any  of  the  king's  courts. 
In  declaring  Danvers  innocent  the  council  agreed  that  for  his  complete 
exonoration  a  record  of  the  case  should  be  enrolled  in  the  chancery.  It 
is  not  unhkely  that  the  skill  displayed  at  this  time  by  the  young  lawyer  was 
a  recommendation  for  his  subsequent  employment  in  the  king's  service. 

NEVILLE  V.  NEVILLE 

1435  The  memorandum  entitled  Neville  v.  Neville  is  a  fragment  pertainmg  to 
the  long  feud  that  was  arising  between  two  branches  of  the  house  of  Neville. 
This  had  its  origin  in  the  two  successive  marriages  contracted  by  Ralph 
Neville,  first  earl  of  Westmoreland  (d.  1425),^  the  first  marriage  having 
been  with  Margaret  Stafford,  and  the  second,  a  more  pretentious  alliance, 
with  Joan  Beaufort  of  royal  blood.  The  father  laboured  indefatigably  to 
found  the  fortimes  of  the  children  of  his  second  family,  in  preference  to  the 
first,  by  a  series  of  great  matches  and  by  a  diversion  of  a  good  half  of  the 
Neville  patrimony.^  So  that  the  larger  share  of  the  landed  estates  and 
pohtical  influence  of  the  Nevilles  ultimately  fell  to  the  descendants  of  Joan, 
herein  mentioned  as  the  coimtess  of  Westmoreland.  There  was  plenty  of 
ground  for  contention  between  the  two  sides,  but  the  immediate  object  of 
dispute  was  the  late  earl's  will  disposing  of  his  personal  property.'  The 
will  was  brought  before  the  exchequer,  but  its  execution  was  in  suspense  by 

any  time,  but  that  no  process  shall  be  lays  down  that  no  judgment,  once  given, 

annulled  or  discontinued  by  such  a  chal-  shall  be  reversed  on  the  ground  of  an  error 

lenge.    The  interpretation  of  this  act  gave  in  any  record. 

rise  to  such  diversity  of  opinion  that  it  was  '  Diet.  A'at.  Biog. 

reaffirmed  in  Stat.  9  Hen.  V,  i,  c.  4  and  =  Compare  the  estate  left  by  the  first 

4  Hen.  VI,  c.  3,  with  the  addition  that  the  earl  with  that  of  the  second  earl.     Cal. 

justices  before  whom  a  plea  was  pending  Inq.  p.  m.  iv,  103,  419. 

might  amend  a  record  either  before  or  '  WilU  and  Inventories   (Surtees  Soc. 

after  judgment.     Stat.  8  Hen.  VI,  c.  12  1835),  i,  68  f. 


ex  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

reason  of  an  appeal  made  by  the  countess  on  the  ground  of  error.  Her  peti- 
tion in  the  parliament  of  1430-31  was  referred  to  the  council,  but  the  council 
doubted  its  power.  A  second  petition  in  1433  directed  the  parties  to  go 
before  the  council  and  definitely  gave  the  council  power  to  reverse  the 
judgment  of  the  exchequer.^  The  council  did  not  welcome  the  task.  From 
20  January  to  25  February,  1434,  attorneys  for  the  countess  sought  from 
day  to  day  to  obtain  a  hearing,  and  at  length  were  told  that  "  because  of 
arduous  business  affecting  the  king  and  the  realm  "  the  matter  could  not  be 
examined  then,  and  that  the  parties  might  come  again  within  three  weeks 
from  the  following  Easter.*  Apparently  there  was  another  postponement, 
before  the  council  gave  any  attention  to  the  matter.  Then  on  4  February, 
1435,  there  was  proposed  the  expedient  of  a  board  of  arbitrators,  of  whom 
each  side  should  choose  three  lords  and  two  justices;  and  if  these  should 
not  be  able  to  end  the  matter,  it  should  be  reported  back  to  the  council.' 
At  this  point  an  historian  of  the  family  is  disposed  to  believe  that  the  feud 
took  a  warhke  turn  and  proceeded  by  methods  of  slaughter  and  destruc- 
tion.' But  chronicles  and  documents  as  yet  say  nothing  of  the  sort,  and  the 
record  before  us  mentions  only  "  fear  of  suits,  unlawful  entries  and  other 
labours  that  were  likely  to  be  done."  A  further  postponement  of  the  strife 
was  effected  by  the  incident  disclosed  in  the  present  memorandum.  When 
the  king  in  1435  required  the  services  of  Salisbury  and  Fauconberg  in  the 
war,  their  mother  the  countess  consented  to  their  departure  only  on  con- 
dition that  the  earl  of  Westmoreland  should  give  suretj'  to  forbear  suits 
and  other  proceedings  during  the  specified  time,  as  a  sort  of  moratorium 
essentially  similar  to  the  war  moratoria  of  today.  This  the  earl  was 
induced  to  do  and  gave  a  recognizance  of  £4000.  There  was  no  breach  of 
the  peace  apparently  during  the  absence  of  SaUsbury  and  Fauconberg,  nor 
during  the  three  years  following.  In  1438  the  council  took  the  matter  in 
hand  again,  endeavouring  to  bring  the  earl  of  Westmoreland  and  the 
countess  to  an  agreement.*  But  the  judicial  fairness  of  the  council  was 
manifestly  open  to  question,  since  the  earl  of  Sahsbury  had  become  an  active 
member  of  the  council  and  had  gained  a  marked  political  ascendencj\' 
Before  the  end  of  the  year  the  inevitable  outbreak  occurred.  According 
to  a  signed  letter  of  the  king  to  his  chancellor,  dated  28  December,  the 
parties  "  each  against  the  other  by  manner  of  war  and  insurrection  have 
late  assembled  great  routs  and  companies  upon  the  fickl  and  done  further- 
more great  and  horrible  offences  as  well  in  slaughter  and  destruction  of  our 
people  as  otherwise."  '"  The  king  commands  that  all  the  parties  be  called 
to  answer  as  law  and  reason  require.  But  one  searches  in  vain  for  any 
effective  treatment  of  the  matter  at  the  hands  of  the  council. 

*  liol.  Pari,  iv,  4G9.  '  Nicoliw,  v,  90,  92,  282,  283. 

'  Nicolas,  Proceedings,  iv,  189.  '  Ibid.,   71  f.     He   was  granted   as   a 

6  Ibid.,  289.  member  of  the  council  an  annuity  of  £100. 

'  D.  Rowlands,  Hist,  of  the  Family  of  Cal.  Pal.  17  Hen.  VI,  289. 

Nevill  (1830),  36.  "  Given  in  full  in  Rowlands,  36.    The 


INTRODUCTION  CXI 

CONFESSION  AND  EXAMINATION  OF  JOHN  FORDE 

1439  The  Examination  of  John  Forde  in  1439  is  an  example  of  the  zeal  of  the 
council  in  enforcing  the  regulations  of  the  wool  trade.  These  regulations 
were  infinitely  specific  as  to  packing,  weighing,  sealing,  cocketing,  etc.,  in 
proportion  to  the  ingenious  methods  of  merchants  to  evade  and  defraud  the 
customs.  One  of  the  conmion  devices  of  illicit  traders,  colloquially  known 
as  "  good  packing,"  was  to  mix  or  wind  in  better  wool  with  cheaper  wool, 
in  order  to  pay  the  lower  custom  duties.  This  offence  was  dealt  with  in  the 
Statute  8  Henry  VI,  c.  22,  to  the  effect  that  no  wool-packer  should  make 
within  the  realm  aught  but  good  and  due  packing,  or  make  any  inwinding 
within  the  fleece  of  wools  at  the  rolling  up  of  the  wool,  etc.  The  present 
case  reveals  a  variation  of  this  practice,  not  noticed  before,  in  the  device  of 
winding  the  raw  wool  in  the  folds  of  woolen  cloth.  There  was  every  temp- 
tation to  do  this,  for  the  statutes  requiring  the  wool  of  the  realm  to  be 
exported  only  to  Calais,'  had  been  made  iucreasingly  struigent,  while 
licenses  to  export  wool  to  other  places  were  difficult  to  get.  On  the  other 
hand  the  exportation  of  woolen  cloth,  noticed  from  the  beginning  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  was  liberally  encouraged  and  exempted  from  the  limi- 
tations placed  on  raw  wool.^  The  statutes  of  Edward  IV  were  to  go  further 
in  restricting  the  exportation  of  wool  in  favour  of  that  of  cloth.  The  revela- 
tions of  John  Forde  stimulated  the  government  to  search  packages  of  cloth 
for  inwindings  of  wool  and  enabled  it  to  detect  others  in  the  same  iUicit 
practices.  A  few  months  later  John  Cok  another  mercer  of  London  was 
found  out  and  arrested  for  packing  wool  with  his  cloth  for  shipment.' 
Different  from  Forde,  he  was  pardoned  on  his  petition  that  he  had  been 
instigated  bj'  evil-doers  who  had  thus  attempted  to  destroy  him,  but  the 
king  confiscated  the  wool  and  the  cloth.  A  series  of  commissions  to  Lord 
Cromwell,  Robert  Large,  William  Fallan,  the  examiners  in  the  present 
case,  to  search  for  the  "  forcing  and  clacking  "  and  other  illegal  practices 
in  the  wool  trade  apparently  had  a  salutary  effect.'' 

THE  BEDFORD  RIOT 

1439  The  Examination  into  the  Bedford  Riot  brings  us  to  an  episode  presaging 
the  worst  days  of  the  Paston  Letters.  In  a  manner  characteristic  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  it  sprang  from  a  dissension  between  two  of  the  leading 
lords  of  Bedfordshire.  One  was  Lord  Grey  of  Ruthin,'  of  an  ancient  family 
with  an  accumulation  of  estates  in  Bedfordshire,  Buckinghamshire,  and 

letter  is  dated  28  December  at  Kenil-  «  Rot.  Pari,  ui,  501;  iv,  377. 

worth,  without  the  year,  but  by  compari-  '  Cal.  Pat.  17  Hen.  VI,  298. 

son  with  letters  of  the  great  seal,  this  may  *  Ibid.,  315,  373,  417,  439,  etc. 

be  inferred  to  be  1438.  '  Dugdale,  Baronage,  i,  716. 

«  Stat.  2  Hen.  VI,  c.  25;   11  Hen.  VI, 
c.  14;  14  Hen.  VI,  c.  5,  etc. 


CXU  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

Wales.  He  had  served  in  the  wars  and  in  the  council  of  Henry  IV  and 
Henry  V,  but  he  was  now  an  aged  man  and  his  pohtical  influence  was  visibly 
waning.  The  other  was  Sir  John  Cornwall,  a  new  man,  who  had  risen 
rapidly  from  obscure  origin  to  be  next  to  Lord  Grey  the  leading  landlord 
of  the  county.  He  had  lately  been  created  a  baron  under  the  title  Lord 
Fanhope  and  was  a  member  of  the  king's  council.  Whether  the  root  of 
the  trouble  lay  in  personal  jealousy  or  the  quarrels  of  their  respective  re- 
tainers and  allies,  we  are  not  informed.  At  all  events  there  came  a  clash 
in  the  spring  of  1437  over  the  appointment  of  four  justices,  apart  from  the 
regular  justices  of  the  peace,  to  inquire  into  felonies,  insurrections,  tres- 
passes, etc.,  occurring  within  the  county.^  Although  two  of  the  justices 
were  friends  of  Lord  Fanhope,  it  is  not  clear  that  his  lordship  had  anything 
to  do  with  their  appointment.  Lord  Grey,  however,  suspected  that  they 
were  acting  in  the  interests  of  his  rival.  When  the  commissioners  then 
came  to  Silsoe  and  endeavored  to  hold  session  in  front  of  the  church.  Lord 
Grey  came  up  with  50  or  60  armed  men,  and  begged  to  know  why  they  had 
chosen  his  church  as  the  place  of  their  session.^  They  must  have  chosen 
it,  he  said,  "  in  despite  of  him,"  yet  he  would  not  obstruct  the  session  but 
wait  to  see  what  they  meant  to  do.  His  ally  John  Enderby,  who  had  come 
with  100  or  120  men,  said  that  the  cormnission  had  been  stolen  and  was 
intended  to  indict  the  tenants  of  Lord  Grey.  On  the  other  hand  Lord 
Fanhope,  who  was  on  hand  with  60  men,  affected  suspicion  of  the  com- 
mission because  it  was  holding  session  in  the  town  of  his  rival.  While  the 
armed  forces  of  both  sides  were  increasing,  through  the  mediation  of  Sir 
Thomas  Wauton  it  was  agreed  that  Lord  Fanhope  with  his  men  should 
move  to  one  side  of  the  town  and  Lord  Grey  to  the  other.  John  Enderby 
as  justice  of  the  peace  in  the  county  promised  to  hold  sessions  of  the  peace, 
and  the  conamissioners  because  of  the  danger  in  proceeding  further  decided 
to  adjourn  their  sessions.  These  facts  were  elicited  in  an  exanaination 
before  the  council  at  Westminster,  where  for  several  days  the  commissioners 
were  questioned  on  the  affair.^  But  as  happened  too  frequently  in  events 
of  this  kind,  no  action  so  far  as  we  know  was  taken  either  by  the  council  or 
by  the  justices  of  the  peace. 

On  12  January,  1439,  there  was  a  similar  occurrence  at  the  town  of  Bed- 
ford, which  came  still  nearer  to  a  warlike  outbreak.  During  the  interval 
of  the  past  year  and  a  half  it  appears  that  Lord  Fanhope  had  gained  an 
advantage  by  excluding  his  rivals,  particularly  John  Enderby  and  Thomas 
Wauton,  from  appointment  as  justices  of  the  peace. ^  They  retaliated  by 
securing  a  special  commission  ^  issued  to  Sir  Thomas  Wauton,  John  En- 

•  This  commission,   dated   16  March,  «  Nicolas,  Proceedings,  v,  35-9,  57-9. 
1437,  was  issued  to  Wilham  Lud.sop,  John  '  The  list  of  justices  of  the  peace  is  in 
Fitz,  Henry  of   Lye  and  William   Pckke      Cal.  Pat.  RolU,  578. 

{Cal.    Pat.   15  Hen.  VI,  87).     Fitz    and  •  No  enrolment  of  this  commission  has 

Pekkc  are  involved  in  the  affair  of  1439.  been  found;   its  existence  is  inferred  from 

•  The   incident   has   been    noticed    in  what  follows. 
Victoria  County  Hist,  ii,  36. 


INTRODUCTION  CXlll 

derby,  John  Fitz,  and  Harry  Etwell,  the  justices  named  in  the  record  now 
at  hand.  Then  there  came  a  collision  between  the  justices  of  this  commis- 
sion and  the  regular  justices  of  the  peace  represented  by  Lord  Fanhope, 
Wilham  Ludsop,  and  WilUam  Peck.  On  this  occasion  Lord  Grey,  who  was 
near  the  end  of  his  Hfe,  took  no  active  part.  The  justices  of  the  special 
conunission  were  about  to  begin  their  session  in  the  town  hall  of  Bedford, 
when  Lord  Fanhope  with  40  or  60  armed  men  came  into  the  hall,  and  after 
a  brief  greeting  sat  down  on  a  bench  at  the  end  of  the  room.  There  was 
an  attempt  to  bring  the  justices  of  both  commissions  together,  but  between 
the  two  sides  there  was  an  exchange  of  rudeness,  argimients,  threats,  and 
words  of  defiance,  until  the  hall  was  filled  with  clamour.  Lord  Fanhope 
leaped  upon  the  board  used  as  a  table  and  drew  his  dagger.  Enderby  also 
held  a  dagger  until  a  sword  was  handed  to  him.  There  were  hundreds  of 
armed  men  in  the  neighbourhood.  Yet  in  all  this  tumult,  or  riot  as  it  was 
called,  no  one  was  injured,  not  even  a  blow  was  struck  by  either  side 
against  the  other.' 

Wauton  and  his  fellows  inunediately  carried  out  their  threat  of  reporting 
the  matter  to  the  king  and  council.  Their  certification,^  which  is  mentioned 
m  our  record,  is  unfortunately  wanting.  Not  to  be  outdone,  Lord  Fanhope 
likewise  made  a  certification,  accusing  his  opponents  of  breaking  up  the 
session  of  the  peace  which  he  had  endeavoured  to  hold.  And  so  the  council 
took  up  the  matter  on  10  February,  in  the  proceedings  now  before  us. 
The  exammation  before  the  lords  in  the  star  chamber  was  the  most  com- 
plete and  searching  that  has  yet  been  recorded.  On  the  facts  alleged  in 
the  certification  of  the  justices  as  many  as  thirteen  articles  of  inquiry  were 
drawn  up.  The  witnesses,  including  the  four  justices  of  the  first  commis- 
sion and  the  undersheriff  of  Betlfordshire,  were  questioned  singly  and 
their  answers  written  down.  Wlien  their  answers  and  admissions  were 
afterwards  read  and  compared,  it  was  found  that  Wauton  and  Enderby 
had  disagreed  over  the  form  of  the  certification.  There  was  a  discrepancy 
in  the  testimony  as  to  the  number  of  Lord  Fanhope's  followers.  The  jus- 
tices admitted  that  they  had  not  announced  to  his  lordship  their  intention 
of  opening  the  session  and  had  hardly  shown  him  due  reverence.  Much 
was  made  of  the  question  whether  Fanhope  held  his  dagger  downward  or 
forward,  whether  his  attitude  and  motions  were  threatening,  and  whether 
he  had  incited  the  tumult  or  sought  to  quell  it.  Fitz  saw  hini  draw  no 
dagger  and  Enderby  admitted  having  drawn  his  own.  They  all  acknowl- 
edged that  his  lordship  had  sought  to  quell  the  riot,  that  he  had  protected 
them  in  going  to  their  lodging,  and  had  hospitably  given  them  drink. 
When  the  record  was  finally  read  in  the  presence  of  many  lords  of  the  coun- 
cil, it  was  their  opinion  that,  while  they  could  not  legally  deny  the  certifi- 

'  These  facts  were  elicited  in  the  exam-  riots,  had  declared  that  in  default  of  the 
ination,  p.  104.  justices  of  the  peace,  certification  should 

>  The  Statute  13  Hen.  IV,  c.  7,  on      be  made  to  the  king  and  council. 


CXIV  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

cation,  the  conduct  of  Lord  Fanhope  and  his  followers  was  not  without 
excuse,  and  that  the  justices  had  most  Hkely  been  actuated  by  motives  of 
mahce  and  anger.  Thus  they  reported  to  the  king,  who  commanded  the 
chancellor  to  issue  a  patent  of  pardon  and  release  for  Lord  Fanhope  and 
all  his  followers.  For  a  record  which  his  lordship  desired,  these  letters 
dated  7  March  with  an  abstract  of  the  case  were  exemplified  on  the  Patent 
RoU.9 

But  the  vindication  of  Lord  Fanhope  was  not  satisfactory  to  his  op- 
ponents, who  then  took  steps  toward  getting  a  similar  vindication  for  them- 
selves. By  letters  patent  dated  30  May,  Wauton  and  his  fellows,  together 
with  a  host  of  men  who  had  participated  on  their  side  in  the  riot  of  12 
Januaiy,  were  pardoned  and  released  of  all  fines,  sureties  and  other  obhga- 
tions  in  regard  to  the  matter.*"  In  the  exact  words  used  in  the  release  of 
Lord  Fanhope,  it  was  declared  that  the  certification  against  them  had  been 
made  of  mere  mahce.  Thus  in  the  midst  of  feuds  and  strifes,  that  were 
leading  directly  toward  civil  war,  the  king  and  council  temporized.  With 
all  the  solemnities  of  legal  procedure,  they  sought  to  do  justice  neither 
to  one  side  nor  the  other.  They  did  not  even  support  one  party  against  the 
other;  but  without  any  intelhgent  policy  they  released  one  band  of  rioters 
and  then  the  other,  for  no  other  gain  than  the  paltry  fees  paid  into  the 
chancery.  It  is  not  surprising  to  learn  that  judicial  sessions  in  Bedford- 
shire were  soon  again  disturbed." 


HEYRON  V.  PROUTE 

1460-63  The  suit  of  Heyron  v.  Proute,  1460-63,  is  a  single  stage  of  a  litigation  that 
was  afterwards  carried  from  court  to  court  during  a  period  of  twenty  years. 
From  a  passage  in  the  chronicles  of  Fabyan  '  we  learn  that  it  originated  in 
a  mysterious  loan  of  £18,000,  which  the  staplers  of  Calais  advanced  to  the 
Yorkist  lords  while  they  were  making  the  town  their  stronghold  in  1459-60. 
When  the  staplers  in  1462  approached  Edward  IV  for  a  return  of  the  money, 
they  were  answered  by  the  council  that  the  loan  had  never  come  to  the 
king's  knowledge,  but  belonged  of  right  to  the  earl  of  Wiltshire  the  treas- 
urer lately  beheaded  for  treason.  Fabyan  saj's  that  it  was  this  Richard 
Heyron,  described  as  "  of  pregnant  wit  and  of  good  manner  of  speech," 
who  brought  forward  at  this  time  the  claims  of  the  staplers.  But  Heyron 
was  speaking  for  none  but  himself,  for  the  present  record  shows  that  al- 
ready in  the  reign  of  Henry  VI  he  had  turned  against  his  fellow  staplers, 
and  was  seeking  by  devious  courses  to  gain  satisfaction  and,  as  events 
prove,  to  wreak  vengeance  on  his  enemies. 

•  Several  of  the  facta  just  given  arc  "  Nicolas,  v,  192. 

derived  from  this  source.     Col.  Pal.  Rolls,  '  New  Chronicles  of  England  and  France 

246.  (1811),  635,  652. 
'»  Ibid.,  282. 


INTRODUCTION  CXV 

The  case,  though  it  was  never  completed,  is  not  without  interest  in 
several  particulars.  It  offers  an  illustration,  not  frequent  in  the  records  of 
the  council,  of  the  method  of  written  pleadings  in  the  form  of  bill,  answer, 
replication,  and  rejoinder.  It  also  contains  in  these  pleadings  the  most  in- 
timate description  of  the  wool  trade  in  these  parts  that  we  have  prior  to 
the  Cely  Papers.^  How  the  wool  was  purchased  extensively  on  credit, 
how  it  was  bought  up  in  the  counties  of  England,  then  brought  to  London 
and  cocketed,  how  it  was  received  and  distributed  at  Calais  are  vividly 
set  forth  in  the  complaint  of  the  merchant.  But  on  the  merits  of  the  suit 
we  can  say  little  more,  for  proofs  are  entirely  lacking.  To  the  charges 
made  by  Heyron  the  defendants  at  first  demurred,  then  denied  them  en- 
tirely. After  these  lengthy  pleadings  Heyron,  evidently  feeling  that  the 
court  was  against  hun,  suddenly  discontinued  the  suit.  With  extraordinary 
ingenuity  he  afterwards  found  a  way  of  impleading  certain  of  his  opponents 
in  the  court  of  the  duke  of  Burgundy.'  At  an  opportune  moment  he  caused 
them  to  be  arrested  in  the  town  of  Bruges  and  tried  for  the  injuries  done  to 
him  at  Calais.  The  process  is  said  to  have  been  long  continued  in  that 
court,  and  was  afterwards  appealed  to  the  king  of  France,  as  overlord  of 
Flanders,  in  the  Parliament  of  Paris.  Here  it  was  dismissed,  as  we  after- 
wards learn,  at  the  solicitation  of  the  king  of  England.  Fearing  that 
Heyron  would  implead  them  still  further  in  foreign  courts,  the  staplers  suc- 
ceeded in  bringing  the  matter  in  1478  before  the  king  and  parliament,  by 
whom  it  was  ordained  that  proclamations  should  be  made  ordering  Heyron 
to  desist  in  these  proceedings.  In  spite  of  these  inhibitions,  Heyron  found 
one  other  resort  in  the  court  of  Rome,  where  on  charges  of  ill  contract  he 
obtained  in  1480,  first  a  penal  admonition  and  then  an  annullatoiy  bull 
against  the  Society  of  the  Staplers.  These  sentences  the  staplers  afterwards 
induced  the  pope  to  revoke. 

The  last  stage  of  the  affaii'  was  an  argument  upon  the  question  of  Hey- 
ron's  right  as  an  English  subject  to  sue  in  foreign  courts  and  of  the  juris- 
diction of  the  king's  court  in  the  matter.  In  1480,  Heyron  returned  to 
England  under  letters  of  protection  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  suing  in 
the  king's  court  again.  For  the  better  safety  of  his  person  he  sought  sanc- 
tuary in  Westminster  Abbey.  Here  he  was  called  upon  to  defend  his  con- 
duct in  having  impleaded  the  king's  subjects  in  foreign  courts.  Our 
knowledge  of  these  events  is  based  entirely  on  a  record  of  the  council,  in 
which  it  answers  at  length  the" pleadings  of  Heyron.^  The  points  in  Hey- 
ron's  plea  were  (1)  that  under  the  treaties  of  intercourse  with  Burgundy, 
he  was  permitted  to  sue  in  the  ducal  court,  (2)  that  he  had  resorted  to 

'  Royal    Hist.    Soc.    (Camden    Series,  I  am  indebted  to  Miss  Cora  L.  Scofield, 

1900).  who  has  discovered  it  in  the  preparation 

'  The  following  facts  are  set  forth  in  of  her  forthcoming  work  on  The  Reign  of 

the  proceedings  of  1478.     Rot.  Pari,  vi,  Edward  IV.     It  is  found  in  Treaty  Roll, 

182;   Cal.  Pal.  17  Ed.  IV,  67.  21  Ed.  IV,  mm.  1-3,  given  below  in  Ap- 

*  For  the  following  remarkable  record,  pendi.x  I,  pp.  121-129. 


CXVl  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

Rome  because  he  could  not  get  justice  elsewhere,  and  (3)  that  the  king's 
letters  ordering  him  to  desist  were  invalid,  because  he  himself  had  letters 
of  license.  In  answer  to  these  points  in  detail  the  council  argued,  (1)  that 
it  was  a  case  of  jurisdiction  over  persons  rather  than  territory.  The  sole 
judge  of  a  dispute  under  the  treaties  of  intercourse  was  the  king,  from  whom 
the  law,  so  far  as  it  was  now  in  question,  had  emanated.  Moreover, 
according  to  the  treaties  no  jurisdiction  over  EngUsh  subjects  had  been 
conceded,  except  in  maritime  captures.'  (2)  As  to  the  appeal  to  Rome, 
Heyron  had  disobeyed  the  king's  conmiand  to  desist,  as  expressed  by  letters 
patent  and  by  the  procurator  at  Rome.  Moreover,  the  papal  sentence 
settled  nothing  because  it  had  been  revoked.  (3)  As  to  the  genuineness  of 
the  king's  letters  issued  at  the  instance  of  the  staplers,  these  were  wholly 
valid,  while  the  validity  of  the  letters  hcensing  Heyron's  appeals  was  open 
to  doubt.  No  such  letters  had  been  issued  under  the  great  seal  or  under 
the  pri\^-  seal,  and,  if  they  had  been  issued  at  all,  they  must  have  been 
under  the  signet  ring.  But  this  could  not  be  ascertained,  because  the  king's 
secretary,  the  keeper  of  the  signet  at  the  time,  was  dead.  If  there  were 
any  such  letters  in  existence,  the  king,  citing  the  recent  action  of  the  pope, 
now  revoked  them.  The  final  declaration  of  the  council  was  that  the 
"profane  and  pecuniary  case"  of  Richard  Heyron  belonged  to  the  king's 
court  and  no  other,  and  here  he  might  have  audience  and  justice.  Heyron 
died  soon  after  in  sanctuary,  we  are  told,  without  having  recovered  any  of 
his  losses  and  being  deeply  in  debt  to  many  persons.* 

TENANTS  V.  WAYNFLETE 

1462  '^^^  '^™^  record  entitled  Tenants  v.  Waynflete  is  to  be  taken  as  supple- 
mentary' to  a  memorandum  in  the  Rolls  of  Parliament  for  the  previous 
year.'  It  represents  the  last  stage  of  a  conflict  that  had  been  going  on  for 
a  year  or  more  in  the  manors  of  Hampshire.  The  first  that  we  hear  of  the 
affair  is  a  complaint  of  the  bishop  of  Winchester  that  his  bondmen  of  East 
Meon  had  thrown  ofif  their  allegiance.  He  invoked  the  Statute  5  Rich.  II 
against  such  insurrections  for  his  protection.  A  commission  of  oyer  and 
terminer,  dated  1  August,  1461,  was  granted,-  but  so  far  as  can  be  seen  it 
effected  nothing,  unless  it  was  to  excite  the  tenants  to  greater  violence.  The 
next  that  we  hear  is  that  the  tenants  have  seized  the  bishop  as  if  to  prevent 
his  escape.'  It  was  when  Edward  IV  was  making  his  first  i^rogress  through 
the  country,  as  he  came  into  Hampshire  in  the  montli  of  August,  that  the 
tenants  of  East  Meon  and  elsewhere  "  in  great  multitude  and  number  " 
came  to  the  king  complaining  of  certain  services,  customs,  and  dues  that 
the  bishop  and  his  agents  were  attempting  to  exact.*    The  king,  not  having 

•  Faedera,  xi,  610;   xii,  72.  "  Brief  Latin    Chron.    (Camden   Soc, 

•  Fabyan,  653.  1880),  174. 

'  Rol.  I'arl.  V,  475.  *  These  events  are  recited  in  the  memo- 

'  Dated    1    August,    1461.     Cal.    Pal.      randum  of  the  Parhament  Roll  just  cited. 
1  Ed.  IV,  38. 


INTRODUCTION  CXVII 

the  leisure  then  to  examine  into  the  matter,  charged  the  peasants  to  con- 
tinue tlieir  services  and  pajnnents  as  before,  and  if  they  felt  themselves 
injured  to  send  deputies  to  the  next  parliament  when  they  should  be  heard 
and  have  answer  according  to  reason.  At  the  same  time,  according  to  one 
account,  the  king  rescued  the  bishop  from  the  hands  of  his  captors  and 
arrested  their  ringleaders.'  On  their  coming  to  parliament,  which  met 
4  November,  the  claims  of  the  peasants  were  referred  to  a  body  of  lawyers, 
three  serjeants,  and  the  king's  attorney,  who  were  to  examine  into  the 
matter  with  the  aid  of  the  learned  counsel  of  both  sides  and  report  to  the 
king  and  the  house  of  lords.  After  long  labour  a  copious  detail  of  partic- 
ulars was  given  to  the  lords  on  14  December.  The  grievances  of  the 
peasants,  it  now  appears,  were 

(1)  The  exaction  of  certain  customs  of  hens  and  com  under  the  name 
of  Shirshette,  otherwise  known  as  Church  Scot. 

(2)  The  exaction  of  a  smn  of  money  claimed  at  two  law  days  of  the 
year  called  Tithing  pennj^  or  Totting  penny. 

(3)  The  levy  of  a  sum  called  custom  pannage  ^  for  swine  in  East  Meon. 

(4)  That  the  court  of  the  bishop  had  been  held  at  the  parsonage  of  East 
Meon  and  not  within  the  manor. 

(5)  As  to  theii-  status,  the  tenants  claim  to  be  freeholders,  not  copy- 
holders, and  their  land  charter  land,  not  copy  land. 

These  claims  were  denied  by  the  bishop  entirely.  The  lords  took  until 
the  next  morning  to  deliberate,  when  it  was  intended  that  every  man 
should  be  asked  for  his  advice.  The  proofs  laid  before  them  consisted  of 
records  of  the  manor,  particularly  court  rolls  and  account  books  called 
Pipes  ^  of  as  many  as  fifteen  bishops,  also  records  of  the  chancery  and  the 
exchequer,  by  which  it  was  determined  after  long  and  serious  debate  that 
the  claims  of  the  bishop  were  fully  sustained  and  that  the  tenants  had  failed 
to  show  sufficient  cause  for  exemption.  The  decree  was  passed  by  the 
lords  on  16  December,  in  the  presence  of  the  justices  of  both  benches,  and 
assented  to  by  the  king. 

But  the  matter  did  not  end  here.  Whether  the  tenants  showed  new 
signs  of  rebellion,  we  do  not  know.  But  in  the  month  of  May  they  were 
complaining  again  that  the  bishop  had  thrown  certain  of  their  neighbours 
into  prison.  Both  parties  were  told  to  send  deputies  before  the  king's 
council.  The  tenants  came,  but  satisfied  that  the  court  was  against  them, 
departed  and  lost  their  case  by  default.  After  the  writs  of  proclamation 
detemiined,  as  is  here  told,  on  3  July,  no  further  attempts,  so  far  as  is 
known,  were  made  by  the  tenants  of  East  Meon. 

The  same  is  given  in  R.  Chandler,  Life  of  acted  of  villeins  only.     See   Tenants  of 

Waynflele  (1811),  App.  348.  Winkjield  v.  Abingdon,  p.  84,  n. 

'  Latin  Chron.,  174.  '  Now  in  the  custody  of  the  Ecclesi- 

•  A   payment   understood   to   be   ex-  astical  Commission. 


CASES  BEFORE  THE  KING'S  COUNCIL 


CASES  BEFORE  THE  KING'S  COUNCIL 

BOISTARD  V.  CUMBWELL' 

1243        Placita  coram  Consilio  Domini  Regis  a  die  sancti  lohannis  Baptiste  ^ 
in  tres  septimanas  Anno  Regni  Henrici  filii  Regis  loannis  27°. 

Assisa  si  Philippus  de  Cumbwell  dissaisivit  Walterum  Boistard '  de 
tribus  Carrucatis  *  terra  in  Chemerswell/  Defendens  dicit  quod  ne  vnquam 
seisitus  nee  probat  quia  loannes  frater  eius  tenuit  de  eo  in  Capite  tenemen- 
tum  illud  vt  in  Feodo.  Et  inde  obiit  sine  prole.  Et  post  ipse  seisivit  in 
manus  suas  quousque  Rectus  heres  veniret  ad  faciendum  servicium  debi- 
tum.  Et  quod  Rogerus  qui  est  ad  fidem  Regis  Frauncie^  est  Rectus  heres 
et  primogenitus  qui  post  venit  de  partibus  transmarinis  et  se  intrusit  sed 
non  permisit  sesinam  habere  quia  non  intelUgebat  ipsura  ahquid  ius  habere 
cum  fratrem  primogenitum  haberet.  Walterus  dicit  quod  petit  dicere 
quicquid  vult  quia  dicit  quod  fuit  in  pacifica  seisina  per  multos  dies.  Et 
nullus  ahus  heres  apparet.  Et  Philippus  ipsum  iniuste  eiecit.  Et  de  hoc 
&c.  lur(ata)  dicit  quod  predictus  loannes  obiit  sine  prole  sed  habuit  fratrem 
Rogerum  nomine  maioris  etatis  quam  predictus  Walterus  qui  est  in  Nor- 
mania  vt  credunt  et  non  est  ad  fidem  Regis  sed  nunquam  eum  viderunt  nee 
vnquam  in  partes  istas  venit  ad  clamorem  apponere  nee  sciunt  vtrum  sit 
vivus  aut  mortuus.  Et  defuncto  loanne  defendens  vt  dominus  Capitalis 
pro  se  in  seisinam  salvo  iure  &c.  Post  Walterus  Rediens  a  partibus  trans- 
marinis posuit  se  in  seisinam  per  Novem  dies,  quo  audito  Philippus  ilium 
eiecit.  Et  petit  Judicium  Curie  ad  discernendum  si  talis  seisina  Walteri  et 
eiectio  Philippi  fuit  disseisinam.'  Post  quia  testatur  quod  Walterus  habet 
fratrem  antenatum  in  Normannia,  et  habet  ibi  terram,  et  fecit  homagium 
Episcopo  Baiocensi,*  et  ipse  Episcopus  Regi  Frauncie;'  de  Consilio  Curie 
terra  teneatur  in  manu  Regis  usque  Rex  aliud  &c.  Et  Philippo  fecit  dande 
XV  marce.'"    Et  dies  datus  est  ei  ad  Indicium  suum  audientlum  coram 

'  Lincoln's  Inn  MSS.  Hale  Collection,  in  different  localities,  depending  upon  the 

16.     See  J.  Hunter  "Three  CBtalogues  "  quality  of  the  soil,  the  popul.ation  &c.    In 

(1838),  p.  286.    This  case  is  not  in  I'taci-  the  Domesday  of  Inclosures  (1897)  Mr. 

torum     Abbrenatio,    nor    in    the    Roluli  Leadani  has  shewn  that  in  the  Midland 

PaTliamenloTum,    nor  is  it  to  be  found  in  and  Southern  counties  of  which  wo  have 

the  Curia  Regis  Roll  T.  T.  27  Hen.  Ill,  nor  returns  it  averaged  rather  more  than  nine 

in   Roll    125,  now  corresponding   to   the  acres  in  1517  (ib.  I.  54). 
former  Roll  17.  '  Chiswell  Farm  in  Cumnor,  Berks;  see 

'  24  June,  1243.  Close  Rolls,  1242-1247,   p.   122;   Cal.   of 

»  A  Walter  Boystard  was  lord  of  the  Pal.  Rolls,  1232-1247,  p.  391. 
manor  of  Lethenborough,  Bucks,  perhaps  "  This  raises  the  question  of  allegiance, 

in  the  thirteenth  century.    See  The  Gene-  on  account  of  which,  doubtless,  the  case 

alogist,  n.s.  (1886)  III,  137.  was  referred  to  the  council.    Coke,  citing 

*  The  plough-land  was  a  variable  area  Bracton,  lib.  2  fo.  80a.,  says  "Every  free- 


CASES  BEFORE  THE  KING'S  COUNCIL 

BOISTARD  V.  CUMBWELL' 

1243  Pleas  before  the  Council  of  the  Lord  the  King  for  three  weeks  from  St. 
John  the  Baptist's  Day '  in  the  twenty-seventh  year  of  the  reign  of  King 
Henry  son  of  King  John. 

An  assize  whether  Philip  of  Cumbwell  has  disseised  Walter  Boistard ' 
of  three  carucates  ^  of  land  in  Chemerswell.^  Defendant  says  that  Walter 
never  was  seised  nor  does  he  show  proof  of  seisin,  because  John  his  brother 
held  that  holding  of  him,  Philip,  in  chief  as  in  fee,  and  then  died  without 
issue.  And  afterwards  he  himself  took  seisin  of  it  into  his  hands  until  the 
right  heir  should  come  to  render  due  service,  and  he  says  that  Roger  who 
is  in  fealty  to  the  king  of  France  *  is  right  heir  and  eldest  son,  and  that  he 
afterwards  came  from  the  parts  beyond  the  sea  and  intruded  himself,  but 
he,  defendant,  did  not  permit  him  to  have  seisin  because  he  did  not  under- 
stand that  he  had  any  right,  as  having  an  elder  brother.  Walter  says  that 
he  asks  leave  to  say  what  he  desires  to  say,  that  is,  that  he  was  in  peaceable 
seisin  during  many  days,  and  no  other  appears  as  heir.  And  Philip  has 
ejected  him  unjustly.  And  touching  this,  &c.  the  jury  say  that  the  afore- 
said John  died  without  issue,  but  he  had  a  brother  named  Roger  older  than 
the  aforesaid  Walter,  that  Roger  is,  as  they  believe,  in  Normandy  and  not 
in  fealty  to  the  king,  but  they  have  never  seen  him,  nor  has  he  ever  come 
into  these  parts  to  put  up  his  claim  nor  do  they  know  whether  he  be  alive 
or  dead,  and  that  after  John's  death  the  defendant  as  chief  lord  took  seisin 
for  himself,  saving  the  right  of  the  true  heir  &c.  Afterwards  Walter, 
returning  from  the  parts  beyond  the  sea,  put  himself  in  seisin  during  nine 
days.  Philip  upon  hearing  tliis  ejected  him,  and  he  asks  the  judgment  of 
the  court  to  decide  if  such  seisin  by  Walter  and  ejection  by  Philip  were 
disseisin.  Afterwards  because  he  gives  evidence  that  Walter  has  an  elder 
brother  in  Normandy  and  has  land  there  and  has  done  homage  to  the 
bishop  of  Bayeux,^  and  the  bishop  himself  to  the  king  of  France,'  by 
counsel  of  the  court  the  land  is  to  be  held  in  the  king's  hand  until  the  king 
otherwise  (determine).  And  the  court  caused  Philip  to  be  given  fifteen 
marks.'"   And  day  was  given  him  for  hearing  his  judgment  before  the 

holder,    except   tenant  in    frankalmoign,  the  doing  of  fealty  and  of  homage;  for 

shall  do  fealty."     1  Inst.  67b.  homage  can  not  be  done  to  any  but  to  the 

'  Probably  a  blunder  of  Hale's  some-  lord  himself,  but  the  steward  of  the  lord's 

what  careless  transcriber  for  disseisina.  court  or  bailife  may  take  fealty."    Little- 

'  Guido,  Bishop  of  Bayeux  1241-1260.  ton,  §  92;  Coke,  68a. 
P.  B.  Gams,  Series  Episcoporum  (1873),  '  Louis  IX,  King,  1226-70. 

p.  507.   "  There  is  great  diveraitie  between  '°  £10. 


2  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

Consilio   Regis  apud   Westmonasterium.     Eo   die  apparuerunt  predict! 
Walterus  et  Philippus  et  propter  absenciam  domini  Archiepiscopi "  datus 
est  ei  dies  &c. 
Rot.  17  Scedula. 

TAYLOR  V.  ROCHESTER  ' 

1292  Ceo  est  la  grant  destruction  e  la  grant  Outrage  ke  fet  est  a  Huwe  le  Tayl- 
lur  ^  de  ses  byens  e  de  ses  chateus  a  Hulprington '  e  a  Wamberge  *  en  le 
Conte  de  WiltesjTe,  par  le  comandement  sire  Salomon  de  Roucestre  * 
adonk  Justyce  errant  en  meyme  le  Conte,^  a  tort  e  acontre  les  estatuz  le 
Rey.'  E  pur  ceo  a  tort  kar  par  la  ou  Johan  de  Tauy  *  par  le  meyntenement 
le  deuandyt  Sire  Salomon  suwyt  un  Bi[lle]  deuers  le  deuantdyt  Huwe  le 
Taj'llur  fausement  de  fere  lever  de  ses  terres  e  de  ses  chateus '  quarante 
lyures  de  les  Cynkante  lyures  auant  dyz.'°  Prymes  furent  totes  les  bestes  de 
les  charuwes"  Huwe  pryses  par  Sire  Johan  de  Wotton'^  adonk  visconte  de 
Wiltes ''  par  la  meyn  Thomas  de  Bouedone  '*'  soen  Ijayllj'f  le  dymej-ne  pro- 
cheyn  apres  la  feste  de  la  Purification  nostre  dame  le  an  du  Regne  le  Rey 
Edward  dysetyme.^^  E  vend^Tent  touz  les  boefs  de  les  charuwes  deynz  les 
oyt  Jours  apres  la  pryse  et  contre  les  estatuz  nostre  Segnur  le  Rey.  E  par 
la  reson  ke  il  vendirent  les  bestes  de  ses  charuwes  tant  come  il  y  auoynt 
autre  byens  asez  a  la  muntance  de  la  dette  demandee.'^  E  trestuz  les  autres 
byens  Huwe  furent  destruyt  e  a  grant  meschief  venduz,  par  le  comande- 
ment sire  Salomon  de  Roucestre  e  par  la  meyn  Thomas  de  Bouedone 
Bayllyf  le  deuantdyt  sire  Johan  de  Wotton  adonk  visconte  de  AViltesire. 
Cest  asauer  a  Hulprinton. 

"  This  must  refer  to  Walter  de  Grey,  •  Wanhorough;    in  Domesday,  Wem- 

chancollor    in    1205,    and    archbishop  of  berge,    in   Kingsbridge  Hundred,  N.   E, 

York  in  1215-1255.     The  see  of  Canter-  Wilts,  three  miles  S.  S.  E.  of  Swindon, 

bury  had  been  vacant  since  the  death  of  '  See  Introd.,  p.  xlix. 

Edmund    Kieh    in    1240.      Boniface   of  "  This  fact,  that  he  held  a  circuit  in 

Savoy,  who  had  been  nominated  to  it  by  Wiltshire,  does  not  appear  to  have  been 

Henry  III  in  1241,  was  not  confirmed  by  hitherto  recorded  of  him.    See  I>icl.  Nat. 

InnocentlVtill  theendof  1243anddidnot  Biog.  sub  Rochester, 

visit  England  till  1244.    When,  therefore,  '  Maintenance  is  defined  by  Coke  as 

Henry  III  sailed  for  France  in  1242  he  left  "  an  unlawful  upholding  of  the  demandant 

the  archliishop  of  York  in  charge  of  the  or  plaintiff,  tenant  or  defendant  in  a  cause 

kingdom,  and  Grey  was  styled  "  the  king's  depending    in    suit,    by    word,    wTiting, 

chief    justiciar."     As    such,    he    would  countenance,  or  deed."     He  lays  it  down 

naturally  preside  at  the  hearing  of  this  (2  Inst.  207)  that  it  was  against  the  Com- 

oase  by  the  council.  mon  Law  as  being  malum  in  sc,  and  it  does 

'  ParliameniaTij    Proceedings    (Chan-  not    appear    to    have    been   a  statutory 

eery),  file  2,  no.  20.  offence   till   the  Statute  of  Westminster 

'  The  comi)Iainant's  name  had,  it  may  the  First  (1275),  which  (cap.  25)  prescribes 

be  inferred  from  the  goods  seized  and  sold,  that  "  no  officer  of  the  king  by  themselves, 

become  a  surname  dissociated  from  the  nor  by  other,  shall  maintain  pleas,  suits, 

handicraft.  or  matters  hanging  in  the  king's  courts, 

*  Hilperton;    in  Domesday,  Helprin-  for  lands,  tenements,  or  other  things,  for 

tone,  in  Melksham  Hundred,  West  Wilts,  to  have  part  or  profit  thereof  by  covenant 

one  mile  N.  E.  of  Trowbridge.  made  between  them,  and  he  that  doth 


TAYLOR  V.  ROCHESTER  2 

king's  council  at  Westminster.  On  which  day  the  aforesaid  Walter  and 
Philip  appeared  and  by  reason  of  the  absence  of  the  lord  archbishop"  day 
was  given  liim  &c. 

TAYLOR  V.  ROCHESTER' 

1292  This  is  the  great  destruction  and  the  great  outrage  that  is  done  to  Hugh 
Taylor  -  of  his  goods  and  of  his  chattels  at  Hilperton  '  and  at  Wanborough  * 
in  the  county  of  Wiltshire  by  the  command  of  Sir  Solomon  Rochester  * 
then  justice  in  eyre  in  the  same  county '  wrongfully  and  against  the 
statutes  of  the  king.'  And  hereby  it  is  wrongful,  for  whereas  John  of 
Tauy '  by  the  maintenance  of  the  aforesaid  Sir  Solomon  sued  a  bill  against 
the  aforesaid  Hugh  Taylor  falsely  to  cause  to  be  levied  of  his  lands  and  of 
his  chattels  ^  fortj'  pounds  of  the  fifty  pounds  above  said,'"  in  the  fir.st  place 
all  the  beasts  of  plough"  of  Hugh  were  taken  by  Sir  John  Wotton'^  then 
sheriff  of  Wilts"  by  the  hand  of  Thomas  Bowdon"*  his  bailiff  the  morrow 
next  after  the  feast  of  the  Purification  of  our  Lady  the  seventeenth  year  of 
the  reign  of  the  king  Edward.'*  And  they  sold  all  the  plough-oxen  within 
the  eight  daj's  after  the  seizure  and  contrary  to  the  statutes  of  our  lord  the 
king.'*  And  by  reason  that  they  sold  the  plough-beasts  while  there  were 
other  goods  sufficient  to  the  amount  of  the  debt  sued  for  and  all  the 
other  goods  of  Hugh  were  destroyed  and  sold  at  great  loss  by  the  com- 
mand of  Sir  Solomon  Rochester  and  by  the  hand  of  Thomas  Bowdon 
bailiff  of  the  aforesaid  Sir  John  Wotton  then  sheriff  of  Wiltshire  that  is  to 
wit  at  Hilperton. 

shall  be  punished  at  the  king's  pleasure."  of  the  debtor,  saving  only  his  oxen  and 

This,    as    Coke    remarks,    is  specificalh'  beasts  of  plough." 

directed  against  champerty,  but  "  every  12  This   is   also   a   Wiltshire  name  in 

champerty    is    maintenance,"    and   it   is  Domesday,   Wodeton,   Wootton,   Bassett 

presumably  to  this  statute  that  the  com-  being    in    Kingsbridge   Hundred,    North 

plainant  is  referring.  Wilts. 

'  The  name  of  two  villages  in  Devon-  "  John   Wotton   was   sheriff  of  Wilts 

shire.  from  2  April,  1281  to  9  May,  1289.    List 

'  "  When  judgment  has  been  given  for  "/  Sheriffs  (P.  R.  O.  1898). 
a  debt,  the  sheriff  will  be  directed  to  cause  '*  Perhaps    '  Bufton  '    is   the   modern 

the  sum  that  is  needful  to  be  made  {fieri  equivalent. 

facias)  out  of  the  goods  and  chattels  of  the  is  The  Feast  of  the  Purification  was  2 

defendant,  or  levied  {levari  facias)  out  of  February.    The  date,  therefore,  is  3  Feb- 

his  goods  and  the  fruits  of  his  land."  ruary,  1289. 

Pollock  and  Maitland,  Hist.  Eng.  Law,  „  ^mong  the  inquiries  by  the  justices 

(1895),  n,  594.  itinerant  in  their  eyre  was  one  "  whether 

'»  Evidence  that  these  papers  are  sup-  any  sheriff  has   distrained  beasts  of   the 

plemental  to  a  bill  of  complaint  which  has  plough,  or  wethers,  or  ewes,  or  household 

disappeared.  utensils,  or  riding  horses,  or  apparel,  or 

"  This  was  clearly  against  the  Statute  things  within  doors,  when  other  sufficient 

of  Westminster  the  Second,  c.  18  (1285),  distress  might  have  been  found,  and  that 

which   provided   that  "the  sheriff  shall  without  doors."  Britton  (cd.  F.M.Nichols, 

deliver  to  him  (the  creditor)  all  the  chattels  1865),  Book  I,  c.  xxii,  vol.  i,  p.  89. 


CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 


HulprintoD 


Estor  vendu 


Ble  vendu 


Cidre  vendu 

Feyn  vendu 
Foer  e  Paylle 

Wamberge 


Prymes  xx  boefs  des  queus  les  xvij  furent  venduz 

checun  a  viij  souz  "  ke  byen  valeyt  xij  souz. 
E  des  treys  boefs  venduz  checun  a  v  souz  ke  byen  valeyt  xij  souz. 

Une  bone  Jumente  vendu  a  iij  souz  ke  bj'en  valeyt  x  souz." 

X  vaches  preygnes  vendues  checun  a  v  s. 

ke  byen  valeyt  viij  souz." 
E  un  beaus  Tor  vendu  a  v  souz  ke  byen  valeyt  x  souz.^" 

E  vj  bouez  suranez  venduz  checun  a  xx  d.  ke  byen  valeyt  iij  souz. 

E  XXX  cheures  venduwes  pur  xxx  souz  ke  byen  valeynt  xlv  s.'' 

E  xxvi  pors  venduz  checun  a  x  deners 

ke  byen  valeyt  xviij  deners.^ 
E  un  sengler  vendu  a  x  deners  ke  byen  valej^  v  souz." 

E  xxiij  quarters  de  forment  bon  e  net  venduz 

le  quarter  a  xviij  d.  ke  byen  valeyt  xxij  d.^ 
E  xviij  quarters  de  mestilon  ^  de  forment  et  de  Drowe  ^ 

vendu  le  quarter  a  .xij  d.  ke  bj-en  valeyt  xx  d. 
E  xxiiij  quarter  de  Orge  venduz  le  quarter 

a  xiiij  d.  ke  byen  valeyt  xx  deners." 
E  iij  quarters  vj  bussels  de  feues  venduz  le  quarter 

a  xij  d.  ke  byen  valeyt  xviij  deners.^' 
E  xiij  quarters  vj  bussels  de  Dragis  venduz  le  qiiarter 

a  xvj  d.  ke  byen  valeyt  xx  deners.* 
Et  ij  quarters  ij  bussels  de  poys  venduz  le  quarter 

a  xij  d.  ke  byen  valeyt  xvj  deners.'" 
E  iiij  Toneaus  de  Cydre  venduz  le  Tonel  a  v  souz 

ke  byen  valeyt  x  souz.'' 
E  tout  le  feyn  vendu  a  x  souz  vj  d.  ke  byen  valeyt  xxx  souz. 

E  Foere''  e  paylle  venduz  a  iij  souz  v  d.  ob. 

ke  byen  valeyt  xiij  s.  iiij  d. 

Ixxviij  quarters  de  forment  venduz  le  quarter 

a  xvj  d.  ke  byen  valeyt  ij  souz.** 


"  The  average  price  of  oxen  in  1288-89 
(Michaelmas  to  Michaelmas)  is  given  by 
Thorold  Rogers  as  8s.-9d.  History  of 
Agriculture  and  Prices  (1866),  i.  343. 

"  This  must  have  been  an  inferior  kind 
of  draught  animal  such  as  those  classified 
by  Rogers  as  "  Affri  and  Stotts,"  the 
average  price  of  which  in  1288-89  was 
lOs.  9id.     Ibid. 

"  The  average  price  of  "  cows  "  in 
1288-89  was  5e.  9Jd-     Ibid. 

"  The  average  price  of  bulls  was  not 
found  by  Rogers  for  each  year.  In  1284 
it  was  lOM)'';  in  1291,  7B,-6d.     Ibid. 

"  Goats  (in  kid)  sold  at  Theydon, 
Essex,  in  1310  at  lUd.     lb.  p.  642. 


"  The  average  price  of  pigs  ("  porci  ") 
in  1288-89  was  28.  2}d.     lb.  p.  343. 

"  The  average  price  of  boars  is  only 
occasionally  entered  by  Rogers.  In  1287 
it  was  38.-2d.;  in  1293,  5s.     Ibid. 

"  This  is  a  very  low  price  for  wheat, 
only  one  lower  being  recorded  by  Rogers  in 
1288-89,  viz.  Is.  4d.  at  Oldington,  Salop, 
though  there  are  four  entries  as  low  as  28. 
Ibid.  ii.  32. 

"  Anglicd,  mixtilion,  misccllan  or  nias- 
lin;  "  mi.xed  grain,  especially  rye  mixed 
with  wheat."  Oxford  English  Dictionary. 
The  entries  for  1288-89  vary  between  38. 
and  18.  8d.     Rogers,  ib.  pp.  33,  34. 


TAYLOR  V.  ROCHESTER 


HulprintoD 


BeasU  sold 


Grain  Bold 


Cider  sold 


Hay  6old 


Forage  and 
Straw 


Wamberge 


First  20  oxen  of  which"  17  were  sold,  each  at  8  shillings  which  was 
well  worth  12  shillings. 

Also  three  oxen  sold  at  5  shillings  each  w^hich  was  well  worth  12  shillings. 

A  good  mare  sold  at  3  shillings'*  which  was  well  worth  10  shillings. 

Ten  cows  in  calf  sold  at  5  shillings  each  which  was  well  worth  8  shillings." 

Also  a  fine  bull  sold  at  5  shillings  which  was  well  worth  10  shillings.^" 

Also  6  old  bullocks  sold  at  20  pence  each  which  was  well  worth  3  shil- 
lings. 

Also  30  goats  sold  for  30  shillings  which  w-ere  well  worth  45  shillings.^' 

Also  26  pigs  sold  at  10  pence  each  which  was  well  worth  18  pence." 

Also  a  boar  sold  at  10  pence  which  was  well  worth  5  shillings.^' 

Also  23  quarters  of  wheat  good  and  clean  sold  at  18  pence  the  quarter 
which  was  well  worth  22  pence.-^ 

Also  18  quarters  of  maslin"  of  wheat  and  dredge^  sold  at  12  pence  the 
quarter  which  was  well  worth  20  pence. 

Also  24  quarters  of  barley  sold  at  14d.  the  quarter  which  was  well 
worth  20  pence." 

Also  3  quarters  6  bushels  of  hay  sold  at  12  pence  the  quarter  which  was 
well  worth  18  pence.'* 

Also  13  quarters  6  bushels  of  dredge  sold  at  16  pence  the  quarter  which 
was  well  worth  20  pence. ^ 

Also  2  quarters  2  bushels  of  peas  sold  at  12  pence  the  quarter  which 
were  well  worth  16  pence.'" 

Also  4  tuns  of  cyder  sold  at  5  shillings  the  tun  which  was  well  worth 
10  shillings.^' 

Also  all  the  hay  sold  at  10  shiUings  6  pence  which  was  well  worth  30 
shillings. 

Also  forage  and  straw  sold  at  3  shillings  and  5  pence  halfpenny  which 
was  well  worth  13  shillings  and  4  pence.'' 

78  quarters  of  grain  sold  at  16  pence  the  quarter  which  was  well  worth 
2  shillings.'' 

"  "  Droue  —  nom  vulgaire  de  diverses 
gramin^es  qui  fournissent  un  fourrage  de 
mauvaise  qualite."  Littrd,  Did.  Franc. 
No  entries  are  given  in  Rogers  under  this 
head. 

"  The  average  price  of  barley  in  1288- 
89  was  28.  3|d.  (Rogers,  i,  228.)  The 
complainant's  valuation  is  again  low. 

"  Rogers  supplies  no  data  by  which  to 
test  this  valuation.     See  ib.  ii,  391. 

"  Dredge,  drage,  a  mixture  of  various 
kinds  of  grain,  especially  of  oats  and 
barley  sown  together.  Oxford  Engl.  Diet. 
Rogers  describes  it  as  "  a  peculiar  kind  of 
barley,  called  drageum,  very  generally 
cultivated,    especially    in    the    Eastern 


counties."  Ib.  i.  27.  He  identifies  it  with 
"  bere  "  and  says  that  "  like  barley,  it 
was  made  into  malt."  Ibid.  Its  average 
price  in  1288-89  was  Is.  lOd.     Ib.  228. 

'"  The  average  price  of  peas  for  1288- 
89  was  Is.  lljd.,  almost  double  the  com- 
plainant's valuation.     Ibid.  228. 

"  The  tun  of  eider  (252  gallons)  in 
1288-89  averaged  8s.  lOd.    Ibid.  446. 

"  Another  form  was  "  forre,"  whence 
fourrage,  fodder.  A.  Brachet,  Diet. 
Elymologique  (1879)  s.  v.  "  fourrage." 
Rogers  supplies  no  data  by  which  to  tert 
this  valuation. 

"  Theaveragepriceof  oats  for  1288-89 
was  Is.  6id.    Rogers,  i.  228. 


4  CASES   BEFORE  THE  KING'S   COUNCIL 

E  xl  quarters  de  Orge  venduz  le  quarter 

a  xij  d.  ke  byen  valeyt  xvj  d." 
E  xliij  quarters  de  Aueyne  venduz  le  quarter 

a  xij  d.  ke  byen  valeyt  xvj  d." 
Et  ij  quarters  de  Poys  venduz  le  quarter 

a  xij  d.  ke  byen  valeyt  xviij  d.'" 
E  feyn  foere  e  paylle  venduz  pur  x  souz  ke  byen  valeyt  .  .  .  souz.'- 
E  une  charette  vendu  a  x  souz  ke  byen  valeyt  xiij  s.  iiij  d.^^ 

Estorvendu        xvij    boefs    venduz    le   boef   a    viij   souz 

ke  byen  valeyt  xij   souz." 
E  ij  Jumenz  venduz  pur  xiiij  s.  ke  byen  valeyt  xx  souz. 

E  vij  bouez  de  deus  anz  checun  vendu 

a  iij  s.  ke  byen  valeyt  v  souz  vj  deners. 
E  ij  Bouez  suranez  venduz  a  iiij  souz  ke  byen  valeyt  vj  souz.'*- 

E  ij  Estoz'^  venduz  pur  v  souz  ke  byen  valeyt  .  .  . 

E  j  Polej'n  vendu  pur  vj  deners  ke  byen  valeyt  .  .  . 

E  viij  Berbiz  venduz  le  Berbiz  a  xvij  d."  ke  byen  valeyt  .  .  . 

Estre  ceo  viij  chapons  viij  Gellynes  wastez  e  destruyt  par  Thomas  de 
Bouedon  .  .  . 

La  Somme  de  la  vente  de  byens  Huwe  le  Tayllur 

venduz  a  Hulprington  e  a  Wamberge  xl  .  .  . 
La  Somme  de  la  verreye  value  de  byens  auantdyt  Ixij  .  .  . 

[Endorsed:]  ...  re  Sire  John  de  Wotton  et  Thomas  de  Bouedonne. 
Hugo  le  Taylur  ponit  loco  suo  lohannem  Turpin  et  David  de  Putone  ad 
loquendum  pro  eo. 

Data  est  dies  partibus  [in  crastino  sancti  Hillarii]  ^ 
Postea  venit  predictus  Hugo  coram  auditore'^  in  crastino  Purificacionis 
beate  Marie  anno  xx"  et  queritur  de  predicto  Salamone  prout  in  billa  sua 
continetur.  Et  Salamon  venit  per  attachiamentum  per  preceptum  audi- 
toris.  Et  Salomon  dicit  quod  non  habet  diem  hie  per  continuacionem 
placiti  nee  unquam  alias  audiuit  aliquid  de  predicta  billa.  Et  quia  com- 
pertum  est  quod  predicta  billa  alias  fuit  placitata  ncc  aliqua  continuacio 
inde  rcperitur  reperitur^'  in  rotulis  per  quod  predictus  Salomon  nullum 
habuit  hie  diem  ad  presens.    Dictum  est  predicto  Hugoni  quod*-  ...  est 

"  As  the  cart,  the  wheels  excepted,  was  "stod."     "Slot"  for  a  young  bullock  or 

chiefly  made  at  home,  the  prices  of  whole  steer  seems  to  be  a  north-country  word 

carts  entered  by  Thorold  Kogers  are  rare.  nowadays;  it  was  probably  more  general 

There  is,  however,  one,  houKht  at  Marl-  in  the  13th  century, 
borough,    with    iron-bound   wheels,    the  "  The  average  price  of  ewes  in  1288-89 

most   expensive   kind,   for   precisely  this  was  lid.     Uogcrs  i.  352. 
sum  of  13e.  4<i.    Rogers,  ii.  522,  cf.  i.  542.  "  Struck    through.      As   St.    Hilary's 

"  Double    the    valuation    of   the  old  Day  is  13  Jan.,  this  would  be  14  Jan. 
bullocks  sold  above.  "  The    word    shows    that    this    case 

"  Qu.     "  stotts  "    from    ADglo-Saxon  was  one  of  those  into  which  inquiry  was 


TAYLOR  V.   ROCHESTER  4 

Also  40  quarters  of  barley  sold  at  12  pence  the  quarter  which  was 
well  worth  16  pence." 

Also  43  quarters  of  oats  sold  at  12  pence  the  quarter  which  was  well 
worth  16  pence. ^ 

Also  2  quarters  of  peas  sold  at  12  pence  the  quarter  which  was  well 
worth  18  pence.'" 

Also  hay  fodder  and  straw  sold  for  10  shillings  which  was  well  worth 
.  .  .  shillings.^ 

Also  a  cart  sold  at  10  shillings  which  was  well  worth  13  shilhngs  and  four 
pence.'* 

Seventeen  oxen  sold  at  8  shillings  a  head  which  was  well  worth  12 
shillings." 

Also  2  horses  sold  for  14  shillings  which  was  well  worth  20  shillings. 

Also  7  bullocks  of  two  years  old  each  sold  at  3  shillings  which  was  well 
worth  5  shillings  6  pence. 

Also  2  old  bullocks  sold  at  4  shillings  which  was  well  worth  6  shillings.'* 

Also  2  stots  ^  sold  for  5  shillings  which  was  well  worth  .  .  . 

Also  1  colt  sold  for  ...  6  pence  which  was  well  worth  .  .  . 

Also  8  ewes  sold  at  17  pence  a  head  "  which  was  well  worth  .  .  . 

Besides  this  8  capons  8  hens  wasted  and  destroyed  by  Thomas  Bowdon. 

The  sum  of  the  sale  of  the  goods  of  Hugh  Taylor  sold  at  Hulprington 
and  at  Wamberge  40  .  .  . 

The  sum  of  the  true  value  of  goods  aforesaid  62  .  .  . 

[Endorsed]  ...  Sir  John  Wotton  and  Thomas  Bowdon. 
Hugh  Taylor  places  in  his  stead  John  Turpin  and  David  Putone  to 
plead  for  him. 

A  day  is  given  to  the  parties  [on  the  morrow  of  St.  Hilarj'].'* 
Afterwards  the  aforesaid  Hugh  comes  before  the  auditor''  on  the  morrow 
of  the  Purification  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  m  the  twentieth  year  [of  the 
king]*"  and  states  his  plaint  touching  the  said  Solomon  as  is  in  his  bill  con- 
tained. And  Solomon  comes  by  an  attaclmient  ordered  by  the  auditor. 
And  Solomon  says  that  he  has  not  a  day  here  by  reason  of  an  adjournment 
of  the  suit  nor  has  he  ever  at  any  other  time  heard  aught  of  the  aforesaid 
bill.  And  because  it  is  found  that  the  aforesaid  suit  has  been  heard  at 
another  time,  and  no  adjournment  of  it  is  found  in  the  rolls,  by  reason  of 
which  the  aforesaid  Solomon  had  no  day  to  be  here  now,  the  said  Hugh  is 

ordered  by  Edward  I  before  seven  '  audi-  Probably  therefore  it  never   came  to  a 

tors'  (see  Introduction,  p.  xlix).     But  it  complete  hearing. 

is  neither  among  those  published  by  the  *»  3  February,  1292. 

Royal  Hist.  Soc.  (Camden  Ser.)  in  1906  *'  Sic,  repeated. 

nor  in  the  analyses  of  the  two  assize  rolls  "  From  here  to  the  end  only  partly 

which  form  the  appendices  to  that  volume.  decipherable. 


5  CASES  BEFORE  THE  KING'S  COUNCIL 

per  dominum  Regem  vel  per  .  .  .  Malet  et  Gilbertum  de"  .  .  .  quod 
tunc  po  .  .  .  recipiendum  in  has  bilks  ct  quod  predictus  auditor  pro  ...  d 
auditor  predictus  Gilbertus  ...  ill  respondeat  et  interim  .  .  . 

VALENCE  V.  BISHOP  OF  WORCESTER 

1294  Placita  coram  domino  Rege  et  eius  concilio'  apud  Estry  iuxta  Sand- 
wycum  in  Octabis  sancti  Hilarii  Anno  Regni  Regis  Edwardi  filii  Regis 
Henrici  xxii". 

Preceptum  fuit  vicecomiti  quod  cum  dilectus  avunculus  et  fidelis  Regis 
Wtooenia  Willelmus  de  Valencia  Regi  monstrasset  quod  cum  Willelmus  Goule  balliuus 
ipsius  Avunculi  Regis  de  Manerio  de  Inteberge  simul  cum  Willelmo  le 
Messager  Sinione  le  Caretter  ■  Galfrido  Pese  et  Thoma  filio  Alicie  de  la 
Hulle  quemdam  malefactorem  latrocinio  rectatum  infra  libertatem  eiusdem 
Mancrii  arestasset  secundum  legem  et  consuetudincm  Regni  Regis  infra 
eandcm  libertatem,  justificandum  prout  de  aliis  malcfactoribus  ibidem 
deprehensis  in  casibus  consimilibus  hactenus  fieri  consuevit;  venerabilis 
Pater  Godefridus  '  WVgorniensis  Episcopus  asserens  dictum  malefactorem 
infra  libertatem  hundredi  sui  de  Oswaldeslawe  per  prefatos  Willelmum 
Simonem  Galfridum  et  Thomam  arestatum  fuisse  et  Custodiam  eiusdem 
ad  se  pertinere,  monensque  et  Jubcns  ipsos  Willelmum  Goule,  Willelmum  le 
Messager,  Simonem,  Galfridum  et  Thomam  corpus  dicti  malefactoris  sic 
arestati  sibi  deliberare  prout  ad  ipsum  racione  libertatis  sue  predicte  per- 
tinuit  justificandum,  ipsos  Willehnum,  Willelmum,  Simonem,  Galfridum  et 

"  Neither    this    name,    nor    that    of  footnotes  to  English 

Malet,  belongs  to  any  of  the  seven  audi-  i  xiie  Uberty  of  Sandwich  was  in  the 

tors  appointed  on  13  October,   1389,  ad  Hundred  of  Estry.     E.  Hasted,  Hist,  of 

audiendum  gravamina  ct  iniurias.  j^f,ii  (1799),  iv,  179. 

■  20  .lanuarv,  1294. 
footnotes  to  l.\tin  3  WilHam   of  Valence,   titular  earl  of 

'  This  case  was  originally  transcribed  Pembroke,  fourth  son  of  Isabella  of  .•Vngou- 

from   the   Hale    MS.    Collection    (42)    in  leme,  widow  of  King  John,  by  her  second 

Lincoln's  Inn  Library;   but  has  since  been  husband,  Hugh  of  Lusignan,  count  of  La 

collated  with  the   original,   which  is  en-  Marche.    He  was,  therefore,  half  brother 

rolled  in  the  Coram  litgc  Roll,  139  Hilary  of  Henry  III,  father  of  Edward  I.     He 

Term,  22  Edward  I  (1294).    A  short  note  established  liimself  in  England  on  Henry 

of  it  is  to  be  found  in  I'lacitorurn  Abbrc-  Ill's  invitation  in  1247;    married  a  great 

vialio  (1811),  p.  290,  the  summary  ending  heiress.  Joan  de  Munchensi,  only  surviv- 

with  the  words  "  Et  postea  adjornatur  ad  iiig  child  of  the  wealthy  Baron  \\'arin  de 

parliamentum."  Minuhensi   l)y   his   first    wife  Joan,   fifth 

'  The  transcriber  of  the  Lincoln's  Inn  daughter    and     ultimately    co-heire.ss    of 

MS.    Hjjpears   to   have   read    "  cleacter,"  William  Marshal,  first  earl  of  Pembroke, 

which  may  have  l)een  "  clicker  "  i.  e.  shoe-  Valence  had  already  in  1289  in  the  course 

maker.    See  Oxford  Engl.  Diet.  s.  v.     But  of  another  dispute  come  into  collision  with 

later  that  MS.  reads  "caracter";    wiiile  Bishoj)  Oiffard  of  Worcester,  in  which  he 

the  original  gives  the  word  as  in  the  text.  had  been  worsted.    But  he  continued  high 

Mr.  Iy(>adam  inclined  to  interpret  it  as  for  in  influence  with  Edward  I  from  whom  he 

the  Norman  "  charetter,"  that  is,  carter.  received  numerous  grants;    exercising  in 

The  word  evidently  puzzled  the  Lincoln's  addition  the  administration  of  his  wife's 

Inn  transcriber.  '  MS.  '  G.'  extensive  possessions,  in  right  of  which  he 


VALENCE  V.   BISHOP   OF  WORCESTER  5 

told  that  ...  is  by  the  lord  the  king  or  by  [  .  .  .  Malet  and  Gilbert"  of 
.  .  .]  that  then  ...  to  be  taken  upon  these  bills  and  that  the  aforesaid 
auditor  for  .  .  .  auditor  the  aforesaid  Gilbert  ...  let  him  answer  and 
meanwhile  .  .  . 

VALENCE  V.  BISHOP  OF  WORCESTER 

1294  Pleas  before  the  king  and  his  council  at  Estry  next  Sandwich  '  in  the 
Octave  of  Saint  Hilary  in  the  twenty-second  year  of  the  reign  of  King 
Edward  son  of  King  Henry. - 

A  precept  was  issued  to  the  shei'iff  that  whereas  the  king's  beloved  and 
trusty  uncle  William  of  Valence '  had  shewn  to  the  king  that  when  William 
Goule  his,  the  king's  uncle's,  bailiff  of  the  manor  of  Inteberge,''  together 
with  William  Messenger,  Simon  Carter,  Geoffrey  Pese,  and  Thomas  son  of 
Alice  de  la  Hull  had  arrested  a  certain  malefactor  to  put  him  on  trial  for 
robbery  within  the  liberty  of  the  same  manor  according  to  the  law  and 
custom  of  the  king's  realm  to  be  punished  within  the  same  liberty,  as  has 
hitherto  been  customary  in  the  case  of  other  malefactors  ^  in  like  cases 
there  taken,  the  venerable  Father  Godfrey  Bishop  of  Worcester  ^  affirming 
that  the  said  malefactor  had  been  arrested  by  the  aforesaid  William, 
Simon,  Geoffrey  and  Thomas  within  the  liberty  of  his  hundred  of  Oswals- 
lawe  and  that  the  custody  of  the  same  malefactor  pertained  to  himself,'  both 
admonishing  and  commanding  them  William  Goule,  William  Messenger, 
Simon,  Geoffrey,  and  Thomas  to  deliver  to  him  the  body  of  the  malefactor 
so  arrested  to  be  punished  according  as  pertained  to  himself  by  reason  of  his 
liberty  aforesaid,  because  that  they  refused  to  obey  such  his  monitions  and 

FOOTNOTES  TO  ENGLISH  to    hang    haud-having    thieves,    that    is, 

,        ,       ■  ,      e        ITT)  thieves  caught  with  the  goods  upon  them 

was  known  by  the  title  of  earl  of  Pern-  ^-^^-^  ^^^  j^^^.^  tg„itory  upon  prosecu- 

broke.     His  biographer  in  the  Dirt.  A  at.  ^-^^  ^^  j,^^  ^^^^^  ^j  ^^^  ^^^^^     g^^  p   ^ 

Biog.,  from  which  these  particulars  are  j^  _   ^.^.,    ^„^;    ^,^,_   j^   564-507.     The 

taken,    remarks    that       the    probability  inquisitions  "  Quo  Waranlo  "  for  Worces- 

seems  that  he  was  never  formally  created  ,^^^1^-^^  ^^^  ^^^^^  ^^^^n  in  4  Ed.  I  (20 

earl,"  which  IS  confirmed  by  the  absence  of  ^^^     1275-127G),    Roluli    Hundredorum 

that  title  from  this  case  although  as   ong  ^gjg^^  j;^  282;    but  it  does  not  appear 

before  as  1264  it  had  been  bestowed  on  therefrom   that   William  de   Valence  en- 

him  by  a  chronicler.  -^yg^j  j^ny  sneh  franchise  in  the  Hundred 

••  Inteberge,    as    in    Domesday;     now  of  Oswaldslaw.     (Ibid.  p.  283.) 
Inkberrow,  in  Mid-Oswaldslaw  Hundred,  "  Godfrey    Giffard,    chancellor   of   the 

East  Worcestershire.    At  the  time  of  the  Exchequer,  1266;    chancellor  of  England, 

Conquest   it   was  held  by  the  bishops  of  1266;    bishop  of  Worcester,   1268;    died, 

Hereford.     During  the  reign  of  Henry  II  1300.     Did.  Nat.  Biog. 
it  passed  to  John  Marshal,  grandfather  of  '  The  return   to   the   Inquisition   Quo 

William  of  Valence's  wife;    though  Joan  Waranto  (Rot.  Hund.  ii,  282)  is  "  Dicunt 

of  Valence  was  found  by  Inquisition  of  quod    hundredum    de  Osewaldeslc  est   in 

1  Ed.  II  to  have  held  the  manor  at  the  manu  Episcopi  Wygornensis."    The  return 

time  of  his  death.      See  Nash,  Hist,  of  of  the  manors  in  this  Hundred  (p.  283) 

Worcestershire  (1782),  ii,  6.  does  not  mention  any  held  by  William  of 

'  A  claim  to  infangenelhef,  or  the  right  Valence. 


6  CASES  BEFORE  THE  KING'S  COUNCIL 

Thomam  pro  eo  quod  hujusmodi  monicionibus  et  iussionibus  suis  in  hoc 
parcre  reciisarunt  majoris  excommunicacionis  sentenciam  in  Regis  contemp- 
tura  et  dignitatis  Regis  Regie  lesionem  et  contra  saeramentum  suum  Regi 
et  corone  sue  prestitum  innodauit/  a  qua  quidem  sentencia  predieti  Willel- 
mus,  Willelmus,  Simon,  Galfridus  et  Thomas  ad  tuicionem  sedis  Curie  Can- 
tuariensis  appellarunt,  sicut  per  quasdam  literas  patentes  sigillo  officialitatis 
Curie  predicte  signatas  coram  Rege  et  consiho  suo  exhibitas  et  lectas  liquet 
manifeste.  Et  quia  huiusmodi  hbertatum  seu  lesionum  earundem  cognici- 
ones  et  corecciones  ad  coronam  et  dignitatem  Regis  speciahter  pertinent,  ac 
prefatus  Episcopus  cognicioncs  et  corecciones  huiusmodi  ad  exheredacionem 
Regis  et  Corone  et  dignitatis  Regie  lesionem  manifestam  nititur  usurpare, 
quod  sustinere  non  vult  Rex  sicuti  nee  debet,  nee  huiusmodi  contemptum 
et  transgressionem  relinquere  non  vult  Rex  inpunitos  prefatum  Episcopum 
per  omnes  terras  et  tenementa  que  de  Rege  tenet  in  Balliua  sua  sine  dilacione 
distringat,  ita  quod  nee  ipse  nee  aliquis  per  ipsum  manum  ad  ea  apponat 
donee  ahud  inde  sibi  preceperit  Rex,  et  quod  haberet  eundem  Episcopum 
in  propria  persona  sua  coram  Rege  hie  ad  hunc  diem  scilicet  in  Octabis 
sancti  Hillarii  ad  respondendum  Regi  de  eontemptu  et  transgressione  pre- 
dictis,  et  ad  faciendum  et  recipiendum  vlterius  quod  Curia  Regis  considera- 
verit  in  hac  parte  et  modo  venit  predictus  Episcopus  et  similiter  Rogerus 
de  Ingepenne  qui  sequitur  pro  rege  et  dicit  quod  die  Martis  proxima  ante 
Gulam  Augusti  anno  Regni  Regis  nunc  xxi°  predictus  Episcopus  Wygorni- 
ensis  per  decanos  suos  fecit  quamdam  inquisicionem  ad  inquirendum  qui 
ceperunt  quendam  Latronem  Thomam  nomine  in  parva  Inteberge  infra 
libertatem  suam  in  prejudicium  status  ecclesie  sue,  per  quam  quidem  Inqui- 

rooTNOTE  TO  LATIN  rex,  si  in  terra  fuorit,  conveniatur,  vol  Jus- 

.  mu-  I         I    •     1  r      !<•  titia  ejus,  si  fucrit  extra  regnum,  ut  rectum 

«rhis  may  be  a  clerical  error  for     im,o-      ^^-  lf^^■^^„    The  bailiff  of  the  manor 

tavit.       See  Du  Cange,  s.  v.  ^nnotare.  ^^J^^  ^^  ,^^.,.^  ^^  ^^^  demesnes  within 

this  Constitution. 

FOOTNOTES   TO   ENGLISH  ,„  rj.^^  ^^„,  „f  „,p  j^jghops  aS  Set  OUt  in 

'  "  The  greater  excommunication  .  .  .  tiie  Statulcs  of  the.  Realm,  i,  249,  runs:    "  I 

involves  not  only  exclusion  from  passive  will  l)e  faithful  and  true,  and  faith  and 

communion  in  the  sacraments,   but  also  loyalty  will  bear  to  the  Kinp  and  to  his 

exclusion  from  active  communion  in  them.  Heirs,  kings  of  England,  of  Life  and  of 

and  from  all  association  with  the  faithful.  Member,  and  of  earthly  Honour,  against 

With  one  thus  excommunicated  and  de-  all  People  who  may  live  and  die,  and  truly 

nounced  liy  name,  no  layman  under  pain  will  acknowledge,  and  freely  will  do  the 

of  the  lesser  excommunication,  nor  clergy-  services  which  belong  to  the  Temporally 

man,  under  pain  of  suspension  from  his  of  the  Hishoprick  of  (Worcester),  which  I 

office,  may  have  relations,  either  in  food,  claim  to  hold  of  you,  and  which  you  render 

drink,  prayer,  or  the  kiss  of  peace."    O.  J.  to  me." 

Reichel,  Complete  Manual  of  Canon  Law  "  This  was  the  Court  of  Arches,  which 

(1896),  ii,  140.  perhaps  originated  in  the  middle  of  the 

•  This  presumably  refers  to  the  Con-  twelfth  century,  by  way  of  an  attempt  to 

Stitutions    of    Clarendon    (1164),    cap.  7.  limit  the  growing  authority  of  the  arch- 

"  NuUus  qui  de  rege  tenet  in  capitc,  nee  deacon's  courts.     This  was  done  by  the 

aliquis    dominicorum    ministrorum    ejus  creation  of  the  office  of  Official;  a  function 

excommunicetur  .  .  .  nisi  prius  dominus  generally  devolving  on  the  chancellor  or 


VALENCE  V.  BISHOP  OF  WORCESTER  6 

commands  in  this  matter,  he  issued  against  them  a  sentence  of  the  greater 
excommunication '  in  contempt  of  the  king  and  to  the  hurt  of  the  king's 
royal  dignity'  and  contrarj-  to  his  oatli  made  to  the  king  and  to  his  crown." 
From  this  sentence  indeed  the  aforesaid  William,  \\'illiam,  Simon,  Geoffrey, 
and  Thomas  appealed  to  the  protection  of  the  court  of  the  see  of  Canter- 
bury," as  is  manifestly  clear  by  certain  letters  patent  signed  with  the  seal  of 
the  official '-  of  the  court  aforesaid  exhibited  and  read  before  the  king  and 
his  council.  And  because  the  cognizances  and  corrections  of  such  liberties 
or  of  injuries  done  to  the  same  specially  pertain  to  the  king's  crown  and 
dignity,  and  the  aforesaid  bishop  is  attempting  to  usurp  the  cognizances 
and  corrections  of  this  liberty  to  the  disherison  of  the  king  and  to  the  mani- 
fest injury  of  the  crown  and  the  king's  dignity  which  the  king  neither  will 
nor  ought  to  suffer  nor  is  the  king  w-illing  to  leave  such  contempt  and 
trespass  unpunished,  (the  precept  issued  was)  to  distrain  w-ithout  delay 
the  aforesaid  bishop  throughout  all  the  bishop's  lands  and  tenements  held 
of  the  king  in  his  bailiwick,  so  that  neither  the  bishop  himself  nor  any 
one  of  himself  should  lay  hand  upon  them*'  until  the  king  should  otherwise 
issue  his  precept  to  him  in  that  behalf,  and  that  he  should  have  the  same 
bishop  in  his  proper  person  here  before  the  king  at  this  day,  to  wit,  in  the 
octave  of  Saint  Hilary'*  to  answer  to  the  king  touching  the  contempt  and 
trespass  aforesaid,  and  to  do  and  to  receive  further  that  which  the  kmg's 
court  shall  have  decreed  in  this  behalf.  And  now  comes  the  aforesaid 
bishop  and  likewise  Roger  de  Ingepenne'*  who  prosecutes  for  the  king  and 
he  says  that  on  Tuesday  next  before  the  gule  of  August  '^  in  the  twenty-first 
year  of  the  reign  of  the  king"  that  now  is,  the  aforesaid  bishop  of  Worcester 
by  his  deans'*  made  a  certain  inquisition  to  inquire  who  had  taken  a  certain 
robber,  Thomas  bj^  name,  in  Little  Interberge  within  his  liberty  to  the 

chief  secretarj'  of  the  prelate,   who  was  A  pedigree  of  the  family  is  to  be  found  in 

appointed,  not  as  a  mere  or  special  dele-  Sir   J.    Maclean's   Hisl.   of  Trigg  Minor 

gate,  but  as  judge  ordinan,-,  to  e.xecute  all  (1876),   ii,  43;     but   it  appears  to   have 

the  jurisdiction  inherent  in  the  person  of  derived    from    Inkepenne    in    Berkshire, 

the   bishop,   or  archbishop,  his  principal.  where  Roger  de  Inkepenne  held  half  a  fee. 

See  Re-port  of  Commissioners  on  Ecdesias-  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  20  Ed.  I,  p.  220,  6  Feb. 

tical   Courts   (1883),    Pari.    Papers,    xxiv,  1292.    Roger  de  Inkpenne's  name  occurs 

p.  26.  in  connexion  with  a  Cornish  case  in  Plac. 

"  See  preceding  note.  -466.  p.  248. 

"  "  Ad    raanum    suam    ponere;     sibi  '*  The   first   of   August,   otherwise   St. 

asserere,     occupare."     Du     Cange     (ed.  Peter  ad  Vincula.    J.  J.  Bond,  Handbook 

Hensehel),  s.  v.  manus.  for  Verifying  Dates  (4th  ed.  1889),  p.  156. 

"  20  January,  1294.  "  1293.      In    that    year    the    Gule    of 

"  This  name  is  not  among  those  of  the  August  fell  on  a  Saturday;    so  that  the 

counsel  or  judges  given  in  Foss,  but  from  date  referred  to  was  28  July.    lb.  p.  58. 
the  Calendar  of  Patent  Rolls  27  Ed.  I,  p.  '»  Decanus  Episcopi;    Idem  qui  vulgo 

445,  it  would  seem  that  he  was  a  depend-  Decanus   ruralis,   aut   Christianitatis,    in 

ant  of  Aylmer  of  Valence.     On  16  Octo-  Legibus   Edwardi  Confess,   cap.   31  .  .  . 

ber,  1299,  Valence  took  out  a  patent  of  Ita  autem  appellatur  quod  is  ab  Episcopo 

protection  for  himself,  Roger  Inkepenne,  constitueretiu-.     Du  Cange,  ed.  Hensehel, 

and  Roger  Inkepenne  the  younger,  going  s.  v.  Decanus. 
with  him  bes'ond  seas  (ib.  &  cf.  p.  420). 


7  CASES  BEFORE  THE  KING'S  COUNCIL 

sitionem  compertum  fuit  quod  nullus  captus  fiiit  infra  libertatein  suam  set 
quidam  talis  Thomas  captus  fuit  in  eodem  loco  infra  libertatem  domini 
Willelmi  de  Valencia.  Et  die  Veneris  proxima  sequente  apud  Hertlebur' 
predictus  Episcopus  excommunicavit  Willelmum  Goule  Balliuum  predicti 
Domini  Willelmi  et  ministrum  Domini  Regis  qui  quidem  Willelmus  non 
fuit  ad  capcionem  Latronis  predicti,  et  similiter  idem  Episcopus  excom- 
municavit Willelmvmi  le  Messager,  Simonem  le  Caretter,  Galfridum  Pese,  et 
Thomam  de  la  Hull  qui  capcioni  illius  Latronis  interfuerunt,  quia  noluerunt 
predictum  Prisonem  ei  reddere.  Et  ista  sentencia  promulgata  fuit  a  proprio 
ore  ipsius  Episcopi.  Et  die  dominica  proxima  sequente  similiter  excommu- 
nicare  fecit  predictos  Willelmum  et  alios  occasione  predicta  in  Ecclesia 
parochiali  vbi  parochiani  sunt  et  in  aliis  quatuor  Ecclesiis  circumadiacenti- 
bus.  Et  istam  sentenciam  fecit  per  decanos  et  Capellanos  suos.  Et  in  vigilia 
Assumpcionis  beate  Marie  proxime  sequente  predictus  Willelmus  Goule 
tradidit  eidem  Episcopo  prohibicionem  domini  Regis  pro  qua  quidem  nichil 
inde  facere  curauit.  Et  die  veneris  proxima  post  festum  omnium  sanctorum 
proximo  sequente  predictus  Episcopus  advocauit  et  probauit  per  suos  pro- 
curatores  quod  ipsi  excommunicaverunt  predictinn  Willelmum  et  alios  pro 
capcione  predicti  latronis  coram  Officiali  Curie  Cantuariensis  ad  quem 
predictus  Willelmus  Goule  appellauit  pro  iniqua  sentencia  predicti  Episcopi. 
Et  in  processu  Cause  predicte  appellacionis  predictus  Episcopus  tulit 
Regiam  Prohibicionem  predicto  Officiali  ne  in  Causa  Appellacionis  pro- 
cederet  vt  excommunicacio  sua  magis  ligaret,  pretextu  cuius  prohibicionis 
predictus  Officialis  supersedit  quousque  optinuit  consultacionem  de  Curia 
Regis.  Et  tunc  sentenciam  predicti  Episcopi  adnichilauit  et  istum  contemp- 
tum  fecit  predictus  Episcopus  domino  Regi  attrahcndo  sibi  iurisdiccionem 
regalem  de  capcione  et  deliberacione  Latronum,  vbi  monstrasse  debuit  pre- 
dictum factum  Domino  Regi,  contra  sacramentum  et  ligenciam  suam  in 
lesionem  Regie  dignitatis  decern  mille  marcarum  et  ad  dampnum  predicti 
Willelmi  de  Valencia  duarum  mille  marcarum  et  ad  dampnum  predicti 
Willelmi  Goule  centum  librarum  et  hoc  est  paratus  verificaie  pro  ipso 
domino  Rege  &c.  Et  Episcopus  venit  et  dicit  quod  non  \'ult  placitare  cum 

"  That    is,    next    day,    29th    July,    at  Cognisance  thereof  belongeth  not  to  the 

Hartlclmry  Castle,  which  was  completed  same  Court.    Fitzherbert,  Nat.  lircr.f.  39. 

by    liishop   Giffard   in    1208,    the   manor  But  is  now  most  usually  taken  for  that 

having  been  held  by  the  bishops  of  Wor-  \\'rit  which  lieth  for  one  that  is  impleaded 

coster  since  the  ninth  century.     Nash,  i,  in  the  Court  Christian  for  a  Cause  be- 

568.  longing  to  the  Temporal  Jurisdiction,  on 

'»  14  August,    1293,   the  Feast  of  the  the    Conuzance    of    the    king's    Court, 

Assumption  being  1.5  August.  whereby  as  well  the  party  and  his  Coun- 

"  The  Feast  of  All  Saints,   1293,  was  cil,  as  the  Judge  hiin.^elf,  and  the  Register, 

Sunday,  1  November;    so  that  this  inci-  are  forl)idden  to  proceed  any  further  in 

dent  took  place  on  4  November.  that  Cause.     See  Broke,  loc.  tit.  &  Fitz. 

«  "  Prohibition,    Prohibitio,   is  a  Writ  Nat.  lircv.  f.  93."     J.  Cowell,  Ititnpr. 
to  forbid   any   Court,  either  Spiritual  or  "  The     excommunication     pronounced 

Secular,   to  proceed  in  any  Cause  there  by  the  bishoj)  and,  in  his  absence,  by  his 

depending,     upon    suggestion     that     the  deans  and  chaplains  was  that  minor  form 


VALENCE   V.   BISHOP  OF  WORCESTER  7 

prejudice  of  the  dignity  of  his  church.  By  this  inquisition  indeed  it  was 
found  that  no  man  was  taken  within  his  liberty  but  such  an  one  as  Thomas 
was  taken  in  the  same  place  within  the  liberty  of  the  lord  William  of 
Valence.  And  on  the  Wednesday-  next  following,  at  Hertlebur',''  the  afore- 
said bishop  excommunicated  William  Goule  bailiff  of  the  aforesaid  Lord 
William  and  servant  of  the  lord  the  king,  which  William  indeed  was  not  at 
the  taking  of  the  robber  aforesaid  and  likewise  the  same  bishop  excommuni- 
cated William  Messenger,  Simon  Carter,  Geoffrey  Pese,  and  Thomas  Hull, 
who  were  present  at  the  taking  of  that  robber,  because  they  were  unwilling 
to  give  the  aforesaid  prisoner  up  to  him.  And  that  sentence  was  promul- 
gated by  the  bishop's  own  mouth.  And  on  the  Sunday  next  following  he 
likewise  caused  to  be  excommunicated  the  aforesaid  William  and  the  others 
on  the  same  gi'ound  in  the  parish  church  where  they  are  parishioners,  and 
in  four  other  neighbouring  churches.  And  he  passed  that  sentence  by  his 
deans  and  chaplains.  And  on  the  eve  of  the  assumption  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  ^lary  next  following^  the  aforesaid  William  Goule  delivered  to  the 
same  bishop  the  prohibition  of  the  lord  the  king  for  which  indeed  he  took  no 
care  to  do  anything  in  that  behalf.  And  on  Wednesday  next  after  the  feast 
of  All  Saints  then  next  following  ='  the  aforesaid  bishop  avowed  and  proved 
by  his  proctors  that  they  excommunicated  the  aforesaid  William  and  the 
others  for  the  taking  of  the  aforesaid  robber  before  the  Official  of  the 
Court  of  Canterburj-  to  whom  the  aforesaid  William  Goule  appealed  on  ac- 
count of  the  unjust  sentence  of  the  aforesaid  bishop.  And  in  process  of  the 
cause  of  the  aforesaid  appeal,  the  aforesaid  bishop  carried  to  the  aforesaid 
official  the  king's  prohibition,--  prohibiting  him  to  proceed  in  the  cause  of 
the  appeal  to  the  intent  that  his  excommunication  should  be  more  bind- 
ing,^ by  virtue  of  which  prohibition  the  aforesaid  official  surceased  until  he 
had  a  consultation"  from  the  king'scourt,  and  thereupon  annulled  the  afore- 
said sentence  of  the  bishop;  and  the  aforesaid  bishop  committed  that  con- 
tempt against  the  lord  the  king  by  drawing  to  himself  the  king's  jurisdiction 
touching  the  taking  and  delivery  of  robbers  where  he  ought  to  have  shewn 
to  the  king  the  fact  aforesaid,  contrarj'  to  his  oath  and  allegiance  to  the 
injury  of  the  king's  dignity^  (to  the  amount)  of  ten  thousand  marks^  and 
to  the  damage  of  the  aforesaid  William  of  Valence  to  that  of  two  thousand 
marks"  and  to  the  damage  of  the  aforesaid  William  Goule  to  that  of  a 
hundred  pounds.  And  this  he,  Roger,  is  prepared  to  prove  on  behalf  of  the 
lord  the  king  &c.    And  the  bishop  comes  and  says  that  he  wills  not  to 

of  the  greater  excommunication  which  wa.s  surcesse  de  advisement."     Coke,  4  Inst, 

designated   as   "  non-solemn,"   to  distin-  163. 

guish  it  from  the  "  anathema  or  execra-  ■'  .Apparently     a      case     of     "  moral 

tion,"  which  last  could  only  be  pronounced  damage."     This  is  an  early  example  of 

by  the  bishop.     Reichel,  ii,  141.  the     "personification     of     the     crown" 

"  "  A  supersedeas  is   but    to   stay  or  familiar  to  us  in  the  phrase  "  crown  and 

forl>ear   the    proceedings,   that    is,   super  dignity."     See  P.  &  M.,  i,  509. 

ad\-isamentum  sedere,  and  is  not  mes  un  »  £6666  13s.  4d.        "  £1333  6s.  8d. 


no  Rege 


8  CASES  BEFORE  THE  KING'S  COUNCIL 

domino  Rege  set  supplicat  Domino  Regi  quod  possit  se  poni  de  alto  et 
basso  in  voluntate  Domini  Regis  de  hoc  quod  sibi  iniponitur.  Et  super  hoc 
predictus  Episcopus  requisitus  si  exeommunicauit  predictum  Willehnum 
Goule  eo  quod  deliberare  noluit  predictum  eaptum  sibi.  Quam  quidem 
sentenciam  predictus  Episcopus  non  dedixit.  Et  dominus  Rex  habito 
tractatu  cum  consilio  suo  predictum  Episcopum  in  forma  predicta  admisit 
et  ^  voluntatem  suam  quam  ei  dicet  cum  sibi  placuerit.  Et  dictum  est  pre- 
dictis  Episcopo  et  Willekno  quod  nichil  tangitur  in  isto  processu  de  eorum 
Ubertatibus  si  quas  habeant  sed  tantum  de  sentencia  injuste  lata  contra 
coronam  Regis.  Et  similiter  dictum  est  predicto  Episcopo  quod  secundum 
Juris  exigenciam  satisfaciat  predictis  Willelmo  de  Valence  et  Willelmo 
Goule  si  sibi  viderit  expedii-e  vt  in  venire  posset  dominum  Regem  gratio- 
siorem.  Postea  Cancellarius  venit  in  Banco  et  dixit  quod  mandavit 
Loquend<un  Episcopo  quod  esset  in  proximo  Parliamento  voluntatem  Domini  Regis 
cum  domi-  auditurus.  In  quo  quidem  Parliamento  nunciante  Gilberto  de  Roubur' 
Datus  est  dies  predicto  Episcopo  in  forma  qua  prius  vsque  diei  Pasche  in 
\'nimi  mensem  vbicunque  &c. 

CITIZENS  OF  LONDON  v.  THE  BISHOP  OF  BATH' 

1295        La  peticion  des  Cytejms  de  Loundres  a  nostre  seignour  le  Rey  en  priaunt 
remedie  des  duresces  south  escrit«s. 

Primierement  cum  lour  chartres  seyent  enfraunchi  que  il  ne  dej-ent  nule 
part  estre  enplede  hors  de  la  Cytee  de  Loundres  de  lour  fraunkes  tenemenz, 
queus  il  ount  denz  la  Cite,  ne  unkes  a  nul  tens  ne  furent,^  tanque  le  Esueske 
de  Baa  qui  ore  est,  en  tens  qe  il  fust  tresorer  del  escheker  e  Deen  de  Saint 
Martin  le  grant,'  saunz  bref  le  Rey  ne  comaundement  par  poer  e  par  out- 
raiouse  destresce,  a  sa  seute  demeygne  cum  Deen  et  deuaunt  li  memes, 
enpleda  un  Osebern  le  Leuer,^  Cytein  de  Loundres,  de  soun  fraunk  tene- 
ment en  Loundres,  ne  sour  ceo  les  chalenges  le  Gardeyn  *  ne  les  Aldermans 

'  I  amend  et  and  read  ad  volunlatem  king's    peace,    etc.      Birch,    Charters    of 

sita(m).  London  (1887). 

'  William  de  la  Marche,  or  de  Marchia, 
cir.  1285  a  clerk  of  the  wardrobe,  some- 

•  Found  in  Parliamentary  Proceedings  time  clerk  of  the  chancery,  in  1290  dean  of 

(exchequer),  roll  8.     The  roll  consists  of  the  collegiate  church  of  St.   Martin's  le 

two  membranes  of  different  size,  written  Grand,  and  in  April,  1290,  the  successor  of 

apparently   by   two   different   clerks.     It  Kirkljy  as  trea.surcr  of  the  exchequer.    In 

contains    transcriptions   of   the   petitions  1293  he  was  elected  bishop  of  Bath  and 

here  printed.     \\'ide  margins  and  spaces  Wells  {Diet.  Nat.  Biog.,  also  Calendars  of 

set  off  the  petitions,  and  in  two  places  Patent  and  Close  Rolls).    His  appointment 

there  are  evident  omissions.  to  the   treasurership  was   not   welcomed 

»  It  was  a  liberty  granted  in  the  charter  by  the  Ixindoners.    A  "  king's  steward  "  he 

of  Henry  I  and  amplified  in  subsequent  was  contemptuously  called,  a  man  "  never 

charters  that  none  of  the  citizens  should  seen  or  heard  of  before  this  time  "  (Flor. 

be  compelled  to  plead  outside  the  walls  for  Hist.    Ill,    280).     For   his   part    in    the 

anything  except  foreign  tenures  and  things  events   alluded   to   in   this   petition,    see 

which  happen  in  other  parts  against  the  Introduction,  p.  li. 


CITIZENS    OF   LONDON    V.   THE    BISHOP   OF   BATH  8 

implead  with  the  lord  the  king,  but  he  prays  the  lord  the  king  that  he  may 
be  placed  touching  high  and  low  at  the  king's  pleasure  as  to  the  penalty 
laid  upon  him.  And  thereupon  the  aforesaid  bishop  was  asked  if  he  ex- 
communicated the  aforesaid  William  Goule  because  he  was  unwilling  to 
deliver  to  him  the  aforesaid  prisoner,  which  sentence  of  excommunication 
indeed  the  aforesaid  liishop  did  not  deny.  And  the  lord  the  king  after  dis- 
course with  his  council  allowoii  tlu;  aforesaid  bishop  in  form  aforesaid  to  be 
at  his  will  to  be  pronounced  to  him,  the  bishop,  at  the  king's  pleasure. 
And  the  said  bishop  and  William  have  been  told  that  any  liberties  they 
may  have  are  in  no  wise  touched  in  that  process,  but  that  it  onlj'  concerns 
the  sentence  of  excommunication  unjustly  laid  contrary  to  the  king's 
crown;  and  likewise  the  aforesaid  bishop  has  been  told  that  by  requirement 
of  law  he  is  to  make  aniends  to  the  aforesaid  William  of  Valence  and  William 
Goule,  should  he  see  fit,  in  order  that  he  might  find  the  lord  the  king  the 
more  gracious.  Afterwards  the  chancellor  came  upon  the  bench  and  said 
that  a  mandamus  was  issued  to  the  bishop  to  be  present  at  the  next  parlia- 
ment to  hear  the  will  of  the  lord  the  king.  In  which  parliament  ^^  indeed  at 
the  report  of  Gilbert  of  Roubury"'  day  was  given  to  the  aforesaid  bishop 
in  form  as  before  within  a  month  after  Easter  Day  wheresoever  the  king 
might  be  &c. 

CITIZENS  OF  LONDON  v.  THE  BISHOP  OF  BATH' 

1295        Petition  of  the  Citizens  of  London  to  our  Lord  the  king  praying  remedy 
for  the  following  duresses. 

In  the  first  place,  whereas  their  charters  have  granted  that  they  shall  in 
no  wise  be  impleaded  outside  the  city  of  London  for  their  free  tenements, 
which  they  hold  within  the  city,-  and  they  have  never  been  so  (impleaded) 
until  the  present  bishop  of  Bath,  at  the  time  when  he  was  treasurer  of  the 
exchequer  and  dean  of  St.  Martin's-le-Grand,'  without  writ  or  command  of 
the  king  (but)  by  power  and  outrageous  distraint,  by  his  own  suit  as  dean 
and  before  himself,  impleaded  one  Osborn  le  Leuer,*  citizen  of  London,  for 
his  free  tenement  in  London,  without  being  willing  to  allow  the  challenges 
of  the  warden  '  (of  the  city)  or  the  aldermen  or  their  charters  with  regard 

='  The    next    Parliament   was    held   at  ■*  or  Osbert  le  Leyre,   or  Laner,   who 

Worcester  on  23  November,  1294.    C.  H.  may  have  been  related  to  William  le  Leyre 

FuTTy,  Parliaments  and  Councils  of  England  a  prominent  alderman.     The  plea   here 

(1839),  p.  56.  mentioned  is  given  in  Cal.  of  Letter-books 

"  Gilbert   of   Roubury   was,   according  of  London  (ed.  Sharpe),  C,  9  and  B,  74, 

to  Dugdale,   appointed  a  justice  of  the  and  is  discussed  in  Introd.  p.  lii. 

king's  bench  in   129.5.     (Foss,   iii,   294.)  '  The  warden,  appointed  by  the  king  in 

The  Patent  Rolls  shew  that  he  was  em-  place   of    the    mayor   during   the   period 

ployed  as  a  commissioner  of  Oyer  and  Ter-  128.5-98,  when  the  city  was  in  hand  (see 

miner  as  early  as  1292  (Cal.  Pal.  21  Ed.  I,  Introd.).     It  was  a  charge  laid  upon  the 

43).    In  33  Ed.  I  (1304-05)  he  is  mentioned  warden  on  his  appointment  to  office,    "to 

as  a  clerk  of  the  king's  council.     Foss,  1.  c.  govern    the   citizens   according   to    their 


9  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

ne  lour  chartres  alower  ne  voleyt,  Mes  forjuga  le  prodom  do  son  tenement 
e  comaunda  le  eors  a  la  prison  de  Flete,  e  les  bones  gentz  de  la  Cyte  amercia 
a  C.  li.  pour  lour  chalenge,  e  pour  ceo  il  ne  voleyent  le  record  e  le  proces  dun 
plaj'  plcdee  en  la  Gihalle  deuaunt  eus  fere  venir  deuaunt  luy  qe  unke  ne  fu 
vew  ne  oy  auaunt  eel  houre  dount  il  prient  au  Rey  remedie. 

Derichef  par  torcenouses  atachementz  countre  chekune  fourme  de  Ley, 
e  par  derenables  destresces  fist  venir  al  Eschekir  Sire  Johan  de  Gysors ' 
Alderman  e  Margerie  sa  femme  e  austres  prodes  hunimes  de  la  Cyte  a 
respoundre  a  la  Priouresse  de  Haliwelle '  de  lour  fraunc  tenement  en 
Loundres  sanz  comandement  le  Rey  qe  auaunt  eel  houre  unke  ne  estoyt 
fet,  e  pour  ceo  qe  les  prodes  hummes  ne  voleyent  pojTit  en  cele  place ' 
mettre  lour  tenemenz  en  jugement  si  prist  les  tenemenz  en  la  meyn  le  Rey 
e  si  les  restint  par  le  grant  poer  qil  aueyt,  taunt  qe  par  force  firent  gre  a  la 
Priouresse  tiel  cum  ele  volej^t  a  lour  deseritison  e  en  defesaunce  e  anientise- 
ment  de  la  Fraunchise  de  la  Cyte  countre  le  chalenge  des  prodes  hummes 
auaunt  diz. 

Derichef  si  ad  il  fest  leuer  de  la  Cyte  plus  de  M'  li.  desterlins  tut  le  plus 
des  dettes  le  Rey  Johan  dues  a  ceo  qil  dist  e  de  austre  tens  dount  memorie 
ne  court  ne  de  ceus  deners  ne  veut  fere  aquitaunce  ne  alowaunce  a  Cyteyns 
par  taille  ne  en  austre  manere  de  quey  il  prient  remedie.' 

Derichef  il  rendirent  acounte  deuaunt  ly  de  la  grant  fin  de  xx.  M* 
mars,'"  ne  unke  alowaunce  ne  los  voleyt  fere  fors  de  une  sumpme  de  CCCC. 
li.,  mes  lour  aquitaunces  fist  retenir  vers  luy  viij  jours  e  plus,  e  pus  les 
resbailla  les  seaus  brisees  e  rumpewes  par  male  garde,  saunz  nule  alowaunce 
fere,  e  touz  jours  ad  fet  coure  en  somons  e  en  estrete  del  escheker  la  sumpme 
de  XX.  M'  mars  entierement  cum  si  rien  en  fu  paye,  de  quey  les  Cyteyns 
prient  remedie,  e  qe  lour  aquitaunces  ne  lur  seient  meins  alowez  pur  la 
brusure. 

Derichef  les  Cyteyns  tienent  le  visconte  de  Loundres  du  Rey  pour 
CCCC.  li.  payaunt  par  an  al  escheker,"  ne  vers  ceus  deners  ne  unt  fors  set 
li.  de  argent  de  certeyn,  e  tut  le  remenaunt  qil  perveient  vers  la  ferme 
soleyent  leuer  partie  partie'-  des  pleez  e  des  pourchaz  e  partie  des  Custumes 

customs    and     liberties  "     {Ann.     Lond.  "  Gysors  or  Gisors,  a  family  of  mayors 

(Kolls  Ser.],  95).     In  the  state  trials  of  and  aldermen,  prominent  for  a  hundred 

1290  the  warden  Ralph  of  Sandwich  was  years,  after  whom,  Stow  says,  was  named 

accused   by   the   aldermen   of   failinp   to  Gisors'    Hall,    corruptly    known    as    Ger- 

defend  the  citizens  against  l>eing  drawn  rard's.     Their  traditional  trade  was  that 

into  pleas  beyond  the  walls.    His  defense  of  peppercr.    A  former  .John  of  Gisors  was 

was  that  in  the  given  ca.se  the  sheriffs,  to  mayor  in  124.5  and  12.59,  and  died  in  12S2. 

whom    the    writ    was   directed,    were   to  The  present  .John  was  alderman  of  Ventry 

blame     and     not    himself     {State     Trials  128.3-96,   and   coroner   1282-85    (Beaven, 

[Camden  Soc],  78-80).     The  wardens  of  Aldermen  of  Lniulim;    Liber  Cusl.  i,  240). 

the  period  were  Ralph  of  Sandwich  1285-  He  was  one  of  the  London  delegates  in  the 

89,  John  le  Bretone  1289,  Ralph  of  Sand-  Parliament  of  Shrewsbury.     He  acquired 

wich  12.S9-92,  John  le  Bretone  1293-98.  considerable  jiroperly  both  inside  and  out- 

The  list  given  in  Liber  Cwil.  ii,  241,  stands  side  the  city,  including  New  Hall  or  Gisors' 

in  need  of  revision.  Hall  in   Breadstreet,   before  his  death  in 


CITIZENS   OF    LONDON    V.   THE    BISHOP    OF    BATH  9 

to  this;  but  he  forejudged  the  good  man  of  his  tenement  and  committed  his 
body  to  the  Fleet  prison,  and  the  good  men  of  the  city  he  amerced  in  £100. 
for  their  challenge,  and  whereas  they  do  not  wish  the  record  and  process  of 
a  plea  heard  before  them  in  the  Gildhall  to  be  brought  before  him,  which  was 
never  seen  or  heard  of  before  this  time,  they  pray  to  the  king  for  remedy. 

Moreover  by  wrongful  attachments  contrary  to  every  form  of  law  and 
by  deraignable  distraints  he  has  brought  before  the  exchequer  without 
commandment  of  the  king  Sir  John  of  Gj'sors '  alderman  and  Margery  his 
wife  and  other  good  men  of  the  city  to  answer  to  the  prioress  of  Haliwell ' 
for  their  free  tenement  in  London,  as  has  never  been  done  before;  and 
because  the  good  men  were  entirely  unwilling  to  put  their  tenements  imder 
judgment  in  this  place,*  he  seized  the  tenements  into  the  king's  hand  and 
by  the  great  power  that  he  had  so  constrained  them  that  they  perforce 
made  peace  with  the  prioress  just  as  she  wished,  to  their  own  disinheritance 
and  to  the  undoing  and  annulment  of  the  franchise  of  the  city,  in  spite  of 
the  challenge  of  the  good  men  aforesaid. 

Moreover  he  has  caused  to  be  levied  upon  the  city  more  than  £1000 
sterling,  being  the  remainder  due  from  the  debts  of  King  John,  as  he  says, 
and  of  other  times  beyond  memory ;  while  for  this  money  he  is  unwilling  to 
give  acquitance  or  allowance  to  the  citizens  either  by  tally  or  in  any  other 
way;  wherefore  they  pray  for  remedy.' 

Moreover  they  have  rendered  account  before  him  for  the  great  fine  of 
20,000  marks,'"  but  he  is  willing  to  make  neither  allowance  nor  acquittal, 
except  for  a  sum  of  £400,  but  their  acquittances  were  kept  by  him  more 
than  a  week,  and  then  returned  with  the  seals  cracked  and  broken  by  bad 
keeping,  without  any  allowance  having  been  made;  and  he  has  always  by 
summons  and  by  estreat  at  the  exchequer  sued  for  the  entire  sum  of  20,000 
marks,  as  though  nothing  had  been  paid;  wherefore  the  citizens  pray  for 
remedy  and  (ask)  that  their  acquittances  may  be  allowed  none  the  less 
because  of  the  broken  (seals). 

Moreover  the  citizens  hold  of  the  king  the  shrievalty  of  London  for  £400 
a  year  at  the  exchequer,"  nor  towards  this  money  have  they  for  certain 
more  than  seven  pounds  of  silver,  but  all  the  remainder  that  they  provide 
toward  the  ferm  they  are  accustomed  to  levy  partly  from  pleas  and  per- 
quisites (of  the  courts),  and  partly  from  customs  upon  divers  merchandise, 

1296  (Cal.  Wills  in  (he  Court  of  Hiisting  it  was  transferred  to  York.    Madox,  Hist. 

[1889],  i,  128;   Cal.  Pat.  11  Ed.  I,  60,  71).  of  Exch.  ii,  ch.  xx,  §  v. 

'  A  Benedictine  nunnery  at  St.  Leo-  *    One  of  many  arrearages  the  basis  of 

nard's,  Shoreditch.    The  nuns  are  in  the  which  is  not  known. 

list  of  those   ha\'ing  a   mill;    they   held  '»  The  great  fine  exacted  by  Henry  III 

various  properties  and  enjoyed  the  rentals  in  1265  for  the  part  played  by  the  city  in 

of  many  tenements  in  the  city.     Letter-  the  Barons'  War.    See  Introduction. 

hooks,  A,  B.  "  The  ferm,  formerly  £300  a  year,  had 

'  i.  e.    in   the   Exchequer,    which   was  been  increased  in  1270  to  £400. 

removed   to   the   Ilusting  of   London   in  '-  Verbal  repetitions   occur  in  several 

1289,  where  it  remained  until  1298  when  places  of  the  text. 


10  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

des  diuerses  marchaiindises  cum  de  \'j'ns,  des  dras,  de  auoyr  de  pej'S,  de 
lejTies  e  des  quirs,  e  des  austres  choses  marchaundes  qe  soleyent  venir  a  la 
Cj'te  en  tens  de  pees,  les  queux  ore  poj-nt  ne  venent,  dount  la  Guerre  est 
encheson,"  e  tut  le  plus  des  pleez,  cum  pleez  des  dettes,  de  trespas,  de  coue- 
naunt,  de  mort  de  auncestre  e  de  nouele  disseisine,  de  pleez  de  terre  partie 
comensaunt  sunt  si  de  nouel  par  Billes,  e  saunz  comaundement  le  Rey, 
Tret  en  escheker,  deuaunt  seneschaus  e  mareschaus"  qe  riens  ne  demeurt 
en  la  Cj'te  aregard  ne  en  teles  pleez  ne  volunt  alower  les  chartres  ne  le 
chalanchs  des  Cj'tejTis  en  nul  pojTit.  Mes  souent  ount  deuaunt  eus  C.  ou 
CC.  des  pouere  genz  de  la  Cyte,  \-iuauns  de  mej-n  ouere  en  Jurez  e  enquestes 
e  en  assizes  e  la  demorent  par  \-iij  jours,  par  x^'  jours,  par  des  laj-es,  e 
par  ajornemenz,  en  taimt  qe  il  perdent  loiu-  mester  e  sunt  tut  enpoueri.'^ 
E  ostendent  chescon  an  duraunt  ceste  gere  deeus  \-iscountes '*  estre  aussi 
cimi  rejTit  pour  le  pajTnent  de  la  ferme  del  \-iscounte.  Kar  tut  lour  est 
fortret  de  quey  il  dussent  la  ferme  leuer.    De  quey  il  prient  remedie. 

E  surtote  rien  priererint  le  Rej-  ses  Cytej-ns,  si  il  ossasent,  qe  il  les 
engettast  des  tieus  \iltez  e  de  reprouer  des  tote  gentz  de  Cj-tez  e  des  \illes 
qui  ount  fraunchises  qe  U  ne  ount  pojTit,  e  si  li  plust  les  grantast  entier 
estat  de  fraunchise,  cum  ancienement  solej-ent  auer,  qar  le  meuz  e  le  plus 
qe  il  les  tient  en  estat  de  bien  e  de  honour  le  plus  serrount  suffisaunz  a  ces 
liges  comandemenz,  a  queus  U  sount  de  tut  abaundonez. 

A  nostre  seignour  le  Rey  e  a  son  conseil  monstre  Peres  de  Tadecastre 
qe  Mestre  Willame  de  la  Marche  Esueske  de  Baa  e  de  Welles  a  tort  li  ad 
fet  prisoner  en  fers  en  la  prison  de  Flete  un  an  et  demy  par  ses  clers  Huge 
de  Xotingeham,'^  Johan  de  Kj'rkebj-,'*  pour  unes  arrerages  del  acounte 
Mestre  Roberd  de  Tadecastre "  son  f rere,  qui  mors  est,  a  qui  Peres  nest 
hejT  ne  executour,  mes  eus  memes  imt  e  sount  sesy  de  touz  ses  biens  e  ses 
chateus,  e  pour  imes  arrerages  qe  eus  demandent  alj*  memes  a  tort.  E  il 
pourchasa  a  un  moj-ns  de  la  seint  Michel  prochej-n  passe  au  drej-n  parle- 
ment  treys  brefs  le  Rey  au  GardejTi  de  Flete,  fourmez  sour  lestatut  de 

"  The  war  with  France,  which  had  long  marshalsea  the  court  of  the  king's  house- 
been  coming  on,  was  definitely  resolved  hold.  Pleas  before  the  steward  and 
upon  in  a  parliament  held  in  June,  1294.  marshal,  apparently  in  the  exchequer, 
Tout,  Political  Hiitory,  iii,  ch.  x.  are  mentioned    in   Cal.    Letter-books,    B, 

"  The  marshal  of  the  exchequer  is  an  83,  91. 
office  described  by  Madox  as  originating  "  According    to   Britton,   sherifTs  and 

in  a  deputy  of  the  marshal  of  England.   It  bailiffs    were    prone    to    summon    more 

was  his  duty  inler  alia  to  seek  the  recovery  people  upon  juries  and  inquests  than  were 

of  debts  due  to  the  king  and  to  appoint  needed,  «"ith  the  intent  to  oppress  some  of 

auditors  for  sheriffs'   accounts   {Hisl.  of  them  and  take  bribes  from  others,  or  to 

Exch.  ch.  xxiv,  §  v).     But  Madox  makes  remove  some  and  put  others  on.     Ch. 

no  mention  of  a  steward  of  the  exchequer,  xxii,  c.  10. 

but  there  was  e^-idently  some  such  officer.  '•  Once  in  1286  and  again  in  1293  the 

The  tribunal  here  mentioned  is  not  to  be  king  attempt^-d  to  make  his  own  appoint- 

confused  with  the  court  of  the  steward  ments  to  the  office  of  the  sherilTs.     Ap- 

and    marshal,    otherwise    known    as    the  propriatorts  thej"  were  called  in  1293.    But 


CITIZENS   OF    LONDON   V.  THE    BISHOP   OF   BATH  10 

such  as  wines,  cloth,  l)ulky  coinniodities,  wool  and  wool-fells  anrl  other 
articles  of  inerchaiuiisc,  which  usually  come  to  the  city  in  time  of  peace,  hut 
do  not  come  now  because  of  the  war;'^  but  most  pleas  such  as  pleas  of  debt, 
trespass,  covenant,  niort  d'ancestor,  novel  disseisin,  and  partition  of  land 
are  lately,  by  bill  and  not  by  writ  of  the  king,  drawn  into  the  exchequer, 
before  stewards  and  marshals,'^  so  that  nothing  remains  in  the  city  to  award, 
nor  are  they  wiUing  in  (hearing)  such  pleas  to  allow  the  charters  or  the 
challenges  of  the  citizens  m  any  way.  But  often  they  have  before  them 
one  or  two  hundred  poor  men  of  the  city,  labourers  (serving)  in  juries,  in 
inquests,  in  assizes,  by  delaj-s  and  by  adjournments  being  kept  for  a  week 
or  a  fortnight,  so  that  they  lose  their  work  and  are  wholly  impoverished.'* 
And  they  show  each  year  during  this  war  that  the  two  sheriffs"  are  as 
nothing  for  the  payment  of  the  sheriff's  ferm.  For  eveiything  has  been 
withdrawn  whereon  the  ferm  might  be  levied.  Wherefore  they  pray  for 
remedy. 

And  above  all  his  citizens  would  beseech  the  king,  if  they  dared,  to  save 
them  from  such  villainies  and  from  the  reproach  of  all  men  of  cities  and 
towns,  who  have  franchises  which  thej'  have  not,  and  if  it  pleases  him  to 
grant  them  entire  their  franchised  estate,  just  as  thej'  have  been  anciently 
accustomed  to  have,  for  the  better  and  the  more  strongly  he  maintains 
them  in  conditions  of  welfare  and  honour,  the  more  sufficient  they  will  be 
to  these  Uege  conmiandments,  to  which  they  are  wholly  devoted. 

To  our  lord  the  king  and  his  council  Pier  of  Tadcastre  shows  that  Master 
William  de  la  March  bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells  by  his  clerks,  Hugh  of 
Nottingham"  and  John  of  Kirkby,'^  has  wrongfullj'  made  him  a  prisoner  in 
irons  in  the  Fleet  prison  for  a  year  and  a  half,  because  of  certain  arrearages 
in  the  account  of  Master  Robert  of  Tadcastre  his  deceased  brother," 
although  Pier  is  neither  his  heir  nor  executor;  nevertheless  they  have 
seized  and  are  in  possession  of  all  his  goods  and  chattels,  for  certain  arrear- 
ages that  they  wrongfully  demand  of  him.  And  a  month  after  last  Michael- 
mas at  the  last  parliament  he  purchased  three  writs  of  the  king  to  the 

the  project  met  with  such  resistance  that  rolls    of    the    chancery,    in    1301    king's 

the  right  of  election  was  confirmed  to  the  remembrancer,  in  1307  one  of  the  commis- 

citizens.    Anri.  Lond.  95,  102;  Col.  Leller-  sioners  to  audit  the  accounts  of  the  Fres- 

books,  A,  178;  B,  183.  cobaldi,  and  in  the  same  year  custodian  of 

"  A  clerk  of  the  exchequer,  later  keeper  the  plaints  made  against  the  late  treasurer 

of  the  great  rolls  (Madox,  ch.  xxiv,  §  iv).  Walter  Langton.    His  death  is  mentioned 

In  1297  the  city  owed  him  a  fee  of  £20  in  1309  in  connection  with  the  property 

(Leiler-books,  B,  239).  that  he  left.    Madox,  ch.  xvi,  §  iv;  Calen- 

"  Not  to  be  confused  with  the  treasurer  dar  CI.  and  Pat.  Rolls,  passim, 
of  the  same  name  who  died  in  1290.    This  "  A  king's  clerk,  one  time  a  surveyor, 

John  appears  on  the  rolls  as  a  clerk,  jus-  who  was  presented  in  1292  to  the  church  of 

tice  of  oyer  and  terminer  and  auditor  of  Skipse.     Cal.  CI.  5  Ed.  I,  229;    Cal.  Pat. 

accounts.    In  1291  he  was  keeper  of  the  20  Ed.  I,  497. 


11  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

acounte  ^  pour  sa  deliueraunce,  e  souent  tendi  sofEsant  meinprise.-'  Mes 
le  Gardeyn  rien  ne  oseit  fere  pour  les  maundernenz  le  Rev,  mes  respoundi 
qe  le  Euesqe  comaunda  qe  nule  deliueraunce  ne  feit  de  son  cors,  si  il  ne 
trouast  seurte  de  CCC  xx  li.  en  countre  la  nature  de  ses  brefs  e  la  fourme 
del  cstatut.  E  ore  a  ceo  parlement--  pourchasa  il  nouel  brcf,  e  troua  bone 
meynprise,  mes  le  Euesqe  ne  voleyt  suffrir  sa  deliueraunce  taunt  cum  il 
demora  Tresorer.  Dunt  Peres  prie  ore  pour  dieu  a  nostre  seignour  le  Rey 
qe  de  ceste  grande  duresse  e  torcenouse  enprisonement  e  retenue  encountre 
ces  brefs  qe  dreiture  li  seit  fet. 

A  nostre  seignour  le  Rey  e  a  son  conseil  prie  Huge  de  Kent  Armurer  qe 
il  ly  face  auer  sa  pay  de  xij  souz  del  Eueske  de  Baa,  les  queus  il  ly  deyt 
pour  une  pej-re  de  Jambeurs,-'  et  j  paj're  des  quisers,-^  e  j  pajTc  de  polej'ns^* 
e  plates  a  ses  peez,  les  queus  furent  pris  hors  de  sa  meson  par  son  comande- 
ment  al  oes  son  cosin  saunz  nul  dener  payer,  ne  puys  ceste  chose  fete  unke 
sa  paye  ne  pourra  auer,  dunt  sil  vous  plest  il  vous  prie  grace  e  remedie  de 
ceste  creaunce  pour  dieu. 

A  nostre  seignour  le  Rey  e  a  son  conseil  se  pleint  Henri  le  Bole-^  Cyteyn 
de  Loundres  qe  par  la  ou  U  fust  viscounte  de  Loundres  si  fust  un  cheual  cum 
dieu  dande  pris  pour  viij  mars,  e  bailie  a  memes  celi  Henri  cum  viscounte 
de  Loundres,  a  respoundre  au  Rey  de  memes  les  viij  marcs,  lequel  chiual 
Mestre  Willame  de  la  Marche  Tresorer  nostre  seignour  le  Rey  en  eel  eel 
tens,  prist  e  prendre  fist  memes  eel  chiual  hors  de  la  gard  ceh  Henri  saunz 
nule  alwaunce  a  ly  fere,  Dount  il  est  uncore  charge  de  memes  les  viij  mars 
a  tort,  pour  quey  il  prie  remedie  issi  qe  memes  les  viij  mars  li  seient  alowez 
ensemblement  ensemblement  oue  la  potoure  de  memes  le  chiual  a  la  value 
de  X  s. 

[Endorsed:  — ]  Peticiones  Ciuium  London'  pro  remedio  versus  Epis- 
copum  Bathon'  et  Well'  Thesaurarium  de  grauaminibus  etc. 

A  nostre  seignour  le  Rey  e  a  son  conseil  monstrc  Peres  Jakes  de  Teme- 
debyr'  ke  Mestre  Willame  de  la  Marche  Eueke  de  Baa  e  de  Welles  a  tort 
fist  atacher  son  Cheual  en  la  Meson  Rauf  le  fiz  Michel  en  Staninglanc"  en  la 
Cite  de  Londres,  en  les  utaues  de  la  Purificacion  Ian  le  regne  le  rey  Edward 
vintime  pur  li  fere  rendre  aconte  del  maneir  de  Wyzintone  la  ou  il  ne  fu  pas 
ministre  ne  receuour,  mes  soulement  surueur  par  son  comaundcment.  E 
par  tel  atachement  li  fist  trouer  meinprise  de  rendre  aconte  del  maneir  as 

'"  Executors    shall     liave    a    writ    of  "  Summoned  to  meet  1  August  or  three 

account,  and  the  same  action  and  process  days  afterwards.    Pari.  Writs,  i,  21. 

in  the  same  wTit  as  the   testator  might  -'  Jambers  or  jambeaux  =  armour  for 

have  had.    Slat.  Wcslm.,  13  Ed.  I,  c.  23.  the   legs.     S.   Meyrick,   Anlient   Armour 

"  A/arii(ca7><io,  a  surety  sHghtly different  (1842),  ii,  144. 

from  bail,  by   which   responsible  persons  "  Quisers,  cuisses  or  cuissaux  =  plates 

gave  Ixinds  to  have  the  party  at  a  time  and  to  fit  over  the  breeches.    Ibid,  ii,  20,  225. 

place,  and  perhaps  to  answer  for  his  good  ''^  Pouluine  or  poleine  =  a  long  piked 

behavior.   Pollock  and  Maitland,  ii,  684  ff.  toe  in  Polish  fashion.     Ibid.  144. 


CITIZENS   OF   LONDON    V.   THE    BISHOP    OF   BATH  11 

warden  of  the  Fleet,  issueil  acconiiiif^  to  the  statute  of  accounts,-"  for  his 
dehverance,  and  often  he  tendered  sufficient  mainprise.-'  But  the  warden 
dared  do  nothing  for  the  commandments  of  the  king;,  but  answered  that  the 
bishop  had  commanded  him  to  make  no  deHvoraiico  of  liis  l)ody,  unless  he 
found  surety  of  £320,  contrary  to  the  contents  of  the  writs  and  the  form  of 
the  statute.  And  now  at  this  parliament  ^^  he  has  purchased  a  new  writ 
and  found  good  mainprise,  hut  the  bishop  was  unwilling  to  allow  his 
dehverance  so  long  as  he  remained  treasurer.  Wherefore  Pier  now  prays  to 
the  king,  for  God's  sake,  that  in  respect  of  this  great  duress  and  wrongful 
imprisonment  and  confinement  contraiy  to  these  writs  justice  may  be  done 
to  him. 

To  our  lord  the  king  and  his  council  beseecheth  Hugh  of  Kent,  armourer, 
that  they  will  have  him  paid  12  shillings  wliich  the  bishop  of  Bath  owes 
him  for  a  pair  of  greaves,-^  one  pair  of  thigh  pieces,-^  one  pair  of  poulaines^' 
and  plates  for  the  feet,  which  were  taken  from  his  house  by  the  bishop's 
command  for  the  use  of  his  cousin  without  the  payment  of  a  penny,  nor 
after  this  had  been  done  could  he  ever  obtain  payment,  whereof  he  prays 
you,  for  God's  sake,  (to  grant)  grace  and  remedy  for  this  debt. 

To  our  lord  the  king  and  his  council  Henry  le  Bole,-^  citizen  of  London, 
complains  that  when  he  was  sheriff  of  London  a  horse  worth  8  marks  was 
taken  as  deodand  and  given  over  to  the  said  Henry  as  sheriff  of  London  to 
answer  to  the  king  for  the  said  8  marks.  This  horse  Master  William  de  la 
March  then  treasurer  of  our  lord  the  king  seized  and  had  the  said  horse 
taken  from  the  care  of  the  said  Heniy  without  making  him  any  allowance 
for  it,  so  that  he  is  still  charged  wrongfully  for  the  said  8  marks,  wherefore 
he  praj-s  for  remedy  that  the  said  8  marks  may  be  allowed  him  together 
with  the  food  of  the  said  horse  to  the  amount  of  10  shillings. 

[Endorsed:  — ]  Petitions  of  the  citizens  of  London  for  remedy  against 
the  bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells  treasurer  in  regard  to  grievances  etc. 

To  our  lord  the  king  and  his  council  Pier  Jacob  of  Tenbury  shows  that 
Master  William  de  la  March  bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells  wrongfully  attached 
his  horse  at  the  home  of  Ralph  son  of  Michael  in  Staining  Lane  "  in  the  city 
of  London,  a  week  after  the  Purification,  in  the  twentieth  year  of  king 
Edward,  in  order  to  make  him  render  account  for  the  manor  of  Whitting- 
ton,  where  he  was  neither  minister  nor  receiver  but  only  surveyor  by  his 
command.  And  by  this  attachment  he  was  required  to  find  surety  for 
rendering  account  for  the  manor  a  week  from  the  following  Easter.    Upon 

"  Alderman  of    Bishopsgate   r29(>-98,  in    St.    Peter's    upon    CornhuU.      Leller- 

and  sheriff  in  1292.     He  appears  promi-  books,  A,  B;  Cal.  of  Tl'i7/,s,  i,  152. 
nently  in  the  records  as  a  witness  and  *'  Staining  Lane.     Mail  land  suggested 

litigant.    In  his  will  he  left  a  tenement  in  that  the  name  was  due  to  the  fact  that  it 

the  parish  of  Gracechurch  and  a  mansion  once  contained   the  haws  of  the  men  of 


12  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

utaues  de  la  Paske  prochein  siuaunt.  A  queii  jor  il  \ant  a  Londres  oue  les 
Roules  kil  aueit  fet  fere  hors  des  Roules  le  prouost  de  Wyzintone.^*  E  par 
ceus  roules  tendi  de  rendre  aconte  et  le  proffrj^  un  Meys  de  jor  en  jor  e  au 
chef  du  mej'S  fist  il  enseeler  ses  roules,  e  comaunda  quil  alast  alostel  deske  a 
la  quinzeme  de  seint  Michel  prochein  suiaunt  a  queu  jor  il  se  proffn,'  a 
Londres  de  rendre  le  aconte  iij  semaines  de  jor  en  jor,  e  doncke  fu  il 
comaunde  de  aler  alostel  deske  a  quinzeme  de  la  Pasche,  a  queu  jor  il  vint  a 
Londres  e  se  proffri  de  rendre  aconte  un  meys  e  ij  jors  de  jor  en  jor,  e 
doncke  fu  il  comaunde  de  aler  alostel,  qar  il  ne  poeit  attendre  de  recejmre 
laconte,  e  il  departy  saunz  jor.  E  pus  ly  fist  maunder  par  Bref  as  utaues  de 
la  Pasche,  a  quel  jor  il  ne  \int  pas  e  fu  agarde  la  grant  destresce,  e  jor  done 
deske  a  lendemain  de  la  trinite  Ian  xxij.^  a  queu  jor  il  vint  e  pria  Bref  au 
vescounte  pur  ses  issues  sauuer,  e  il  fu  respondu  kil  nauereit  point  auaunt 
kil  eust  aconte.  E  le  vescounte  ad  leue  xl.  s.  de  ses  issues  par  le  comaunde- 
ment  le  Eueke.  E  il  mej^mes  fu  a  restu  de  la  trinite  deske  a  la  seint  lorenz*' 
par  ix  semaines  e  iij  jors.  E  tutdis  se  proffrj-  de  jor  en  jor  del  aconte 
rendre,  e  donkes  aconta.  E  a  chescune  venue  vint  il  e  demora  e  ritorna  a 
ses  custages  demeyne,  pur  ly,  un  garcoun  e  un  cheual,  dont  rens  ne  ly  fu 
alowe  sor  son  aconte.  E  sor  son  aconte  a  tort  ly  greua  chargaunt  de  diuerses 
choses  qil  naueit  mie  receu  e  nient  alowant  renables  despenses  e  mises,  e 
pur  son  seruise  de  iiij  aunz,  pur  manger  ne  pur  bejaire,  ne  pur  robe  ne  pur 
seute,  rens  ne  li  fu  alowe,  ne  il  meymes  rens  ne  recent  mes  a  tort  e  a  volente 
fu  mis  en  arrerages  de  x^-j.  li.  e  mis  en  la  prison  de  Flete,  ileuke  ly  ad  detenu 
en  fers  un  an  e  plus  dont  il  prie  pur  dieu  ke  de  la  grace  nostre  seignour  le  rey 
sur  tutes  greuaunces  remedye  \y  seit  fet. 

A  nostre  seignour  le  Rey  monstre  Nicole  de  Clere^'  e  se  pleint  del  Eueke 
de  Baa  de  ceo  ke  taunt  come  il  fist  sur  son  aconte  de  Wejmiuster  me3Tne 
leueke  toly  ses  lettres  le  Rey  patentes  e  autre  garaunt  par  les  queus  il  aueit 
le  tresor  le  rey  leaument  liuere  par  comaundement  le  rey,  e  ceus  garaunts 
e  lettres  ad  il  torzenousement  desalowe  e  retenu  e  pur  arrerage  de  aconte 
ou  il  rens  ne  deit  e  par  autres  tort[z]enouse  Jugemenz  lad  il  emprisone  e  en 
prison  retenu  pus  lendemain  de  la  tiffanie  aueit  iij  aimz.  Si  ad  les  issues 
de  tuz  ses  benefices  de  iiij  aunz  passez  pris  en  la  main  le  rey,  e  si  ly  ad 
sustret  e  tolet  sustenaunz  passez  sont  ij  auns  e  deaiij'  par  acye  kil  meurge 
par  defaute  de  sustenaunce  par  duresce  de  prison,  ke  sa  verite  ne  seit  soue. 
E  purceo  a  nostre  seignour  le  rej'^  prie  leuantdit  Nicole  ke  pur  deu  e  pur 
salme  ly  pleyst  comau^nder  ke  son  cors  seit  deliure  de  prison  e  graunter  ly 

Staines.      Domesday    and    Beyond,    181 ;  was  9  weeks  and  3  days  according  to  the 

Kingsford,  Slew's  Survey,  ii,  340.  method  of  counting  the  weeks  and  days  at 

"  The  land  of  Nicholas  of  Whittington,  the  beginning  and  end. 

CO.  Northumberland,  mentioned  as  having  "  .\  king's  clerk,  frequently  appointed  to 

been  taken  into  the  king's  hand  because  of  commissions  in  Ireland;  in  1284-S.")  custo- 

the  owner's  default.    Cal.  CI.  Rolls,  18  Ed.  dian  of  archbishopric  of  Dublin;  from  1285 

1,147.  until  about  1292  treasurer  of  Ireland.   Ccd. 

»  =  14  June,  1294.  Pa/.  iJo«5,  13  Ed.  1, 146,  149,  193;  20  Ed.  I, 

••  =  10  August,    1294.      The  interval  491. 


CITIZENS   OF    LONDON   V.   THE   BISHOP    OF   BATH  12 

this  day  he  came  to  London  IjringiiiR  the  rolls  which  he  had  had  made  from 
the  rolls  of  the  manor  of  Whittington.-"  With  these  rolls  he  intended  to 
render  account  and  offered  to  do  so  from  day  to  day  for  a  month,  and  at 
the  end  of  the  month  he  had  his  rolls  sealed  up,  having  been  commanded  to 
go  home  until  a  fortnight  after  the  following  Michaelmas;  at  that  time  he 
presented  himself  at  London  to  render  the  account  (appearing)  from  day 
to  day  for  three  weeks,  and  then  he  was  commanded  to  go  home  until  a 
fortnight  after  Easter;  at  this  time  he  came  to  London  and  offered  to 
render  account  (presenting  himself)  from  day  to  day  for  a  month  and  two 
days,  and  then  he  was  told  to  go  home,  since  the  bishop  could  not  wait  to 
receive  the  account,  and  he  departed  without  (having)  a  day.  Then  he  was 
summoned  by  writ  (to  appear)  a  week  after  Easter,  when  he  did  not  come, 
and  the  great  distress  was  awarded  (against  him) ,  and  a  day  was  given  upon 
the  morrow  of  Trinity  in  the  22nd  year.^  On  this  day  he  came  and  prayed 
for  a  writ  to  the  sheriff  to  save  his  revenues,  but  he  was  answered  that  he 
should  not  have  (the  writ)  until  he  had  accounted.  And  the  sheriff  has 
levied  40s.  from  his  incomes  by  command  of  the  bishop.  And  he  himself 
was  arrested  from  Trinity  until  the  Feast  of  Saint  Lawrence,^"  nine  weeks 
and  three  days,  constantly  presenting  himself  from  day  to  day  to  ren- 
der account,  and  then  he  accounted.  And  every  time  he  came  and 
stayed  and  returned  at  his  own  expense,  for  himself,  his  servant  and  his 
horse,  for  which  nothing  was  allowed  him  in  his  account.  And  in  his 
account  (the  bishop)  had  wrongfully  aggrieved  him  charging  him  for 
various  things  that  he  had  never  received,  and  failing  to  allow  reasonable 
expenses  and  outlays,  while  for  his  services  of  four  years,  for  food  and  drink, 
for  robe  and  suit,  nothing  had  been  allowed  him;  not  receiving  anything 
himself  he  had  been  wrongfully  and  wilfully  put  to  losses  of  £1G  and  thrown 
into  the  Fleet  prison,  where  he  had  been  kept  in  irons  for  a  year  and  more, 
wherefore  he  prays  for  God's  sake  that  by  grace  of  our  lord  the  king  remedy 
for  all  the  grievances  may  be  afforded  him. 

To  our  lord  the  king  shows  Nicholas  of  Clere  '*  and  complains  against 
the  bishop  of  Bath  that  while  he  was  rendering  his  account  at  Westminster 
the  said  bishop  deprived  him  of  the  king's  letters  patent  and  other  warrants 
whereby  according  to  the  king's  command  he  had  loyally  delivered  the 
king's  treasure;  these  warrants  and  letters  the  bishop  had  wrongfully  dis- 
allowed and  withheld,  and,  although  he  owes  nothing,  for  his  arrearages 
and  by  means  of  other  false  judgments  (the  bishop)  has  imprisoned  him 
and  kept  him  in  prison  for  three  years  since  the  morrow  of  Epiphany.  So 
the  incomes  of  all  his  benefices  for  the  last  four  years  have  been  taken  into 
the  king's  hand,  and  withdrawn  from  him,  while  he  has  been  deprived  of 
subsistence  here  for  the  past  two  years  and  a  half  that  he  has  remained  in 
prison  under  duress  for  want  of  means,  so  that  the  truth  might  not  be 
known.  Wherefore  the  aforesaid  Nicholas  prays  our  lord  the  king  that  for 
the  sake  of  God  and  his  soul  he  may  be  pleased  to  command  that  the 


13  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

audience  e  dreiture  en  sa  sourt  e  auditours  doner  deuaunt  queus  sa  verite 
put  estre  monstre  e  trye  pur  le  rey,  e  ke  dreytes  alowaunces  ly  seient  fetes, 
e  tuz  torz  repelees  e  redresces  ke  fet  \y  sount.  Les  auditours  ke  nostra 
seignour  le  rey  ly  ad  auaunt  cest  hure  done  par  la  priere  la  reyne  de  Navere 
sont  ceus.  Mon  sire  Willame  de  Valence'-  le  Conte  de  Garrenne^'  Sire 
Robert  de  Hertford.^^  Ore  tart  auaunt  le  departyr  des  Cardinaus^*  par  la 
priere  le  Cardinal  de  Gascoyne  graunta  nostre  seignour  le  rey  al  auauntdit 
Nicole  audience  e  dreit  en  sa  court,  pleyse  nostre  seignour  le  Rey  lauaunt- 
dite  audience  graunter  e  peticion  comaunder. 

A  nostre  seignour  le  Rey  monstrent  Roger  Paw'  de  Catesby  e  Henry 
son  frere  ke  par  la  ou  11  furent  coylleurs  e  achatours  des  laynes  Cleysaloe 
marchaund  de  Flaundres  en  le  Conte  de  Leycester,  e  lur  paya  ses  deners, 
Iv  mars,  dont  il  achaterent  v  sakes  de  layne  le  pris  du  sake  xj  mars,  e  le 
coj'Uerent  en  certein  lu,  cest  asauer  a  Meltone  e  a  Gaddesby,  la  vint  lau- 
auntdit  marchaunt  e  restent  celes  laynes  par  certej'n  pays,  e  les  fit  mettre 
en  sakes,  e  se  tient  bien  paee  del  achat.  Apres  ceo  auint  ke  par  comaunde- 
ment  le  rey  furent  seysis  en  la  main  le  rey  tutes  les  laynes  marchaundises 
des  aliens,^^  issi  ke  le  vescounte  fist  sej'sir  celes  leynes  oueuke  autre  mar- 
chaundises des  aliens;  lauauntdit  Cleysaloe  sa  parceut  kil  ne  puet  fere  son 
prou  des  laynes  auauntdites,  vint  al  Escheker  nostre  seignour  le  rey,  e 
purchaca  Bref  de  fere  venir  les  auauntdiz  Roger  e  Henry  a  respondre  des 
[diz]  Iv  mars  dont  il  aueient  achatez  les  auauntdites  leynes.  Les  auauntdiz 
Roger  e  Henry  vindrent  en  court  e  aleggerent  ke  atort  deraaunda  il  celle 
dette  vers  eus  de  sicome  il  bien  saueit  ke  les  deners  furent  applaios  en  les  v 
sakes  de  lajme  kil  meymes  aueit  receu  e  mis  en  sake,  e  la  ou  les  leynes 
demorent  en  la  garde  le  vescounte  come  chateus  forfez  al  eus  le  rey,  furent 
les  auauntdiz  Roger  e  Henry  comaundez  a  la  jirison  do  Flete  par  comaunde- 
ment  le  tresorer  pur  les  Iv  mars  e  la  sont  il  deraore  de  la  cjuinzeme  apres 
de  la  seint  Michel  derreynement  passes  dekes  a  ore,  e  uncore  demeorent 
dont  il  prient  grace  e  remedye  pur  dcu  e  pur  lalme  le  rey  Henry  e  la  reyne 

"  William  of  Valence,  titular  Earl  of  to  mediate  for  peace  between  the  kings  of 

Pembroke.     Did.  Nal.  Biog.  England   and   France.     They  arrived  in 

"  John  de  Warenne,  Earl  of  Surrey.  England  14  .\ugust  and  appeared  at  the 

Ibid.  parliament    then    being   held   at   London 

'*  An  attorney   and   commissioner,   in  (Cal.  CI.  Rolls,  443,  449).    Here  they  were 

1289  justice  of  common  pleas  (Cal.  Pal.  put  olT  politely  on  the  ground  that  the 

Rolls,  336),  in  1290  one  of  the  commission-  king  must  consult  his  allies,  but  thoy  suc- 

ers  to  amend  any  error  in  a  cause  at  the  ceeded  in  jicrsuading  Edward  afterwards 

Husting  of  London  (ibid.  399),  and  again  to  send  envoys  to  France  (Ibid.  506).    By 

in  1292  to  correct  any  error  in  the  king's  28  September  they  had  already  left  Eng- 

court  at  London  (ibid.  521).     His  death  land  to  treat   in  turn   with  the  king  of 

occurred  in  1295  or  soon  after.  France,     bearing    a    special    request    of 

"  This  reference  to  the  cardinals  is  the  Edward  that  English  and  Gascon  prison- 
clearest  guide  to  the  date  of  the  petitions.  crs  might  be  surrendered  to  the  king  of 
Immediately  on  hLs  accession  in  1295  France  {Fmlera  O.  ii,  1)87,  689;  Ileniing- 
Boniface  VIII  sent  two  cardinal-legates  burgh,  ii,  68).    One  of  the  cardinals  was 


CITIZENS   OF   LONDON    V.   THE    BISHOP    OF    BATH  13 

prisoner  be  delivered,  and  to  grant  him  hearing  and  justice  in  his  court,  antl 
to  provide  auditors  before  whom  the  truth  may  be  shown  and  specified  for 
the  king,  and  that  just  allowances  may  be  made  him,  and  that  all  wrongs 
that  have  been  inflicted  upon  him  may  l)e  undone  and  redressed.  The 
auditors  whom  our  lord  the  king  at  the  intercession  of  the  queen  of  Navarre 
had  previously  appointed  are  as  follows:  Sir  William  of  Valence,'-  Earl 
Warenne'^  and  Sir  Robert  of  Hertford."  Seeing  now  before  the  departure 
of  the  cardinals,'^  bj-  intercession  of  the  cardinal  of  Gascony  our  lord  the 
king  has  granted  the  aforesaid  Nicholas  hearing  and  justice  in  his  court, 
may  our  lord  the  king  be  pleased  to  grant  the  aforesaid  audience  and 
commend  his  petition. 

To  our  lord  the  king  Roger  Paw  of  Catesby  and  Henry  his  brother 
declare  that  whereas  they  were  collectors  and  buyers  of  wool  for  Cleysaloe 
merchant  of  Flanders  in  the  county  of  Leicester,  (who)  paid  them  of  his 
money  55  marks,  with  which  they  purchased  5  sacks  of  wool  at  the  price  of 
11  marks  a  sack,  and  while  they  were  collecting  it  in  a  certain  place, 
namely  at  Melton  and  Gadesby,  there  came  the  aforesaid  merchant  and 
received  the  wool  at  a  certain  weight,  had  it  put  into  sacks,  and  considered 
himself  well  satisfied  with  the  purchase.  Subsequentlj^  by  command  of  the 
king  all  the  wool  (and)  merchandise  of  aliens  were  seized  into  the  king's 
hand,'*  so  that  the  sheriff  made  seizure  of  this  wool  together  with  other 
merchandise  of  aliens;  (when)  the  aforesaid  Clej^saloe  perceived  that, 
because  he  could  not  keep  possession  of  the  aforesaid  wool,  he  came  to  the 
exchequer  of  our  lord  the  king,  and  purchased  a  writ  venire  facias  against 
the  aforesaid  Roger  and  Henry  to  respond  for  the  aforesaid  55  marks  with 
which  they  had  purchased  the  aforesaid  wool.  The  aforesaid  Roger  and 
Henry  came  to  court  and  alleged  that  he  wrongfully  claimed  this  debt 
agamst  them  since  he  well  knew  that  the  monej'  had  been  spent  for  the  5 
sacks  of  wool  which  he  himself  had  received  and  filled,  and  (they  say  that) 
whereas  the  wool  remained  in  the  care  of  the  sheriff  as  forfeited  chattels  to 
the  use  of  the  king,  the  aforesaid  Roger  and  Henrj'  were  by  command  of 
the  treasurer  committed  to  the  Fleet  prison  on  account  of  the  55  marks, 
and  there  they  have  remained  since  the  fortnight  after  last  Michaelmas, 
and  there  they  still  remain ;  wherefore  for  the  sake  of  God  and  the  souls  of 

Berard  de  Gouth  or  Got,  Archbishop  of  chants  of  friendly  countries  might  come 

Lyons,   mistakenly  called  Archbishop  of  and  go,  the  goods  of  all   persons  under 

Bordeaux  (Eubcl,  Hierarchia,  i,  11),  here  the    dominion    of    the    king    of    France 

mentioned  as  cardinal  of  Gascony;    the  should  be  confiscated  (Cal.  CI.  Rolls,  22 

other  was  Simon  de  Beaulieu,  Bishop  of  Ed.  I,  375).     It  is  likely  that  just  such 

Praeneste.  an  order  was  issued  to  London.     Hence- 

"  The  command  here  referred  to  has  forth     licenses    to     merchants    for    the 

not  been  found,  but  there   is   an  order  exportation    of    wool    were    granted    on 

of  5  Nov.   1294   to   the   warden   of  the  condition  that  none  of  it  should   go  to 

Cinque  Ports,  to  the  effect  that  while  mer-  France. 


14  CASES   BEFORE    THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

sa  compaigne  ke  mort  est "  qil  ne  murgent  en  prison  par  pouerte  e 
defaute. 

A  nostre  seignour  le  rev  monstre  labbe  de  Combe  ^  qe  par  la  ou  Henrj-  le 
Waleys''  do[na  et  grauntja  al  auauntdit  abbe  un  mes,  e  les  dous  parties 
de  un  mes  cue  les  apurtenaunces  en  la  parosse  nostre  dame  de  la  stronde  e 
de  seint  Clement  deneys  taunt  come  play  fu  pendamit  entre  une  femme  e 
leuauntdit  Henrj-.  E  sur  ceo  nostre  seignour  le  rey  granta  par  sa  chartre** 
al  auauntdit  abbe  la  entree,  e  labbe  prist  sa  sej-sine  solom  la  chartre,  puys 
■s-int  la  femme  e  reeouera  vers  mejTnes  cely  Henrj'  leuauntdit  mes  par 
defaute  par  quey  labbe  fust  en  gete.  E  pus  vint  leuauntdit  Henry  e  re- 
eouera eel  mes  vers  memes  cele  femme  par  Bref  de  dreit  en  leyre  de  Middel- 
sex,  e  autrefeiz  refeffa  labbe,  ore  \-ient  le  tresorer  e  seysy  eel  mes  en  la  main 
le  rey  purceo  ke  la  chartre  kil  ad  du  rey  nest  pas  renouelee  apres  le  derreyn 
feffement  Henrj-  dont  labbe  prie  a  nostre  seignour  le  rey  si  li  plest  sa  grace. 

A  nostre  seignur  le  Rey  e  a  seon  conseil  prie  Johan  de  Erleye*'  sa  grace  de 
une  reconisaunce  kil  fist  al  Escheker  puys  son  age  par  destresce  e  par  sa 
noun  sauaunce  Ian  nostre  seignur  le  rey  ^^ntime  des  arrerages  de  la  ferme 
de  Northpertone,*^  ke  ses  auncestres  tindrent  du  rey,  les  queus  arrerages 
auindrent  taunt  come  il  fu  de  deinz  age  en  la  garde  le  rey  encrustrent  dekes 
a  cele  some  la  quele  il  ad  reconue,  dont  il  prie  nostre  seignur  le  rey  ke  cele 
reconusaunce  seit  si  ly  plest  anentye  e  pur  nule,  e  qe  il  pusse  estre  en  lestat 
come  son  pere  fu  Phelipe  de  Erie  le  jor  kil  morust  come  de  cele  dette  e  de 
ceo  qe  il  ad  paye  ke  il  pusse  auer  alowaimce. 

A  nostre  seignur  le  rey  monstre  Johan  de  Erie  ke  horn  li  demaund  al 
Esheker  de  la  mort  Phelipe  de  Erlej'e  son  pere  relef  de  Baroun  la  ou  mej-mes 
cely  Phelipe  ne  nul  de  ses  auncestres  unkes  ne  furent  Barouns,  mes  tindrent 
du  rej^  en  cheualerj-e,  dont  leuaimtdit  Johan  prie  pur  deu  la  grace  le  rej'  qe 
il  pusse  ses  terres  tenir  solom  la  forme  e  par  les  seruises  ke  ses  auncestres 
tindrent  pus  le  conquest  en  cea,  e  qil  pusse  teu  relef  payer  come  len  trouera 
al  Escheker  ke  ces  auncestres  unt  paye  auaunt  cest  hure. 

"  Some  such  praj-er,  in  the  name  of  the  roj-al   commissions   in   local   affairs   {Cal, 

Queen  &c.  was  frequent  in  the  conclusion  Pat.  Rolls).     He  was  among  those  sum- 

of  petitions.     See  Bills  in  Eyre  (Selden  moned,  as  a  representative  of  the  city,  to 

Soc.  1914),  passim.  a  council  held  by  the  king  in  1296  at  Ber- 

"  A  Cistercian  abbey  in  Warwickshire.  wick-on-Tweed    {Cal.    Close   Rolls,    522). 

Dugdale,  Monast.  v,  582  f.  When  at  length  the  liberties  of  the  city 

"  Sir  Henry  le  Waleys,  or  Gualeys,  one  were  restored  in  1298,  he  was  the  first  to 

of  the  magnates  of  the  city,  noted  for  his  be  elected  maj-or.    Stow  credits  him  with 

wealth  and  public  service.    He  had  been  a  number  of  public  improvements,  such  as 

mayor  in  1273  and  1281-83,  between  1276  beginning   the   great   conduit   in   Cheap, 

and   1294   was  alderman   of  Cordwainer  putting  up  the  Tun,  building  a  row  of 

Ward,  and  in  1283  was  member  of  parlia-  houses  and  shops  along  the  wall  of  St. 

menl  (Beaven,  Aldermen  of  London,  i,  113,  Paul's  churchyard  (Kingsford-Stow,  i,  17, 

239,263).    He  appears  to  have  been  loyal  54,  188,  &c.).    His  house  was  so  big  that  it 

to  the  king  as  well  as  to  the  city,  serving  was  once  used  for  a  parliament  (A  work 

together  with  the  warden  and  sheriffs  on  worthy  of  citation  in  this  coimection  is 


CITIZENS   OF   LONDON   V.   THE    BISHOP    OF   BATH  14 

the  late  King  Hcnrj^  and  the  queen  his  consort"  they  pray  for  grace  and 
remedy  that  thej'  may  not  perish  in  prison  by  reason  of  poverty  and  failure. 

To  our  lord  the  king  the  abbot  of  Combe'^  shows  that  whereas  Henry  le 
Waleys'^  granted  and  conceded  to  the  aforesaid  abbot  a  messuage  and  two 
parts  of  a  messuage  witli  the  appurtenances  in  the  parish  of  Our  Lady  of 
the  Strand  and  of  St.  Clement  Danes,  concerning  which  a  plea  was  pending 
between  a  woman  and  the  aforesaid  Henry.  Hereupon  our  lord  the  king 
by  his  charter  *''  granted  entry  to  the  aforesaid  abbot,  and  the  abbot  took 
possession  according  to  the  charter,  then  came  the  woman  who  recovered 
the  aforesaid  messuage  by  default,  whereby  the  abbot  was  ousted.  Then 
came  the  aforesaid  Henry  who  recovered  this  same  messuage  against  the 
said  woman  by  writ  of  right  in  the  eyre  of  Middlesex,  and  again  enfeoffed 
the  abbot ;  now  comes  the  treasurer  who  seized  this  messuage  into  the  hand 
of  the  king  on  the  ground  that  the  charter  which  he  has  of  the  king  has  not 
been  renewed  since  the  last  enfeoffment  of  Henry;  wherefore  the  abbot  prays 
to  our  lord  the  king,  if  it  pleases  him,  for  his  grace. 

To  our  lord  the  king  and  his  council  John  of  Erley^'  praj's  for  grace  con- 
cerning a  recognisance  which  he  made  in  the  exchequer  since  he  became  of 
age,  under  compulsion  and  without  knowledge,  during  the  twentieth  3'ear 
of  our  lord  the  king,  with  regard  to  arrearages  of  the  farm  of  North  Pether- 
ton,^2  which  his  ancestors  held  of  the  king.  These  arrearages  accrued  while 
he  was  under  age  in  the  guardianship  of  the  king,  having  increased  to  the 
sum  that  he  had  recognised ;  wherefore  he  prays  our  lord  the  king  that  this 
recognisance,  if  it  pleases  him,  may  be  cancelled  and  annulled,  and  that  he 
may  be  of  the  (same)  estate  as  his  father  Philip  of  Erley  was  on  the  day  he 
died  and  that  for  tliis  debt  and  for  the  (money)  he  has  paid  he  may  have 
allowance. 

To  our  lord  the  king  John  of  Erley  shows  that  by  reason  of  the  death  of 
his  father  Philip  of  Erley  there  is  demanded  of  him  at  the  exchequer  relief 
as  a  baron,  whereas  neither  the  said  Philip  nor  any  of  his  ancestors  ever 
were  barons,  but  held  of  the  king  by  knight  service;  wherefore  the  afore- 
said John  praj's  the  king,  for  God's  sake,  that  he  may  hold  his  lands  in  the 
maimer  and  for  the  services  that  his  ancestors  held  them  since  the  Conquest, 
and  that  he  may  pay  such  relief  as  it  shall  be  found  at  the  exchequer  that 
his  ancestors  paid  before  this  time. 

that  of  F.  Schenck,  London  Merchants  of  a  ward  of  the  king,  is  on  record  as  doing 

Edward  I,  a  thesis  in  Harvard  Univ.).  homage  for  his  lands  in  1292.     Cal.  CI. 

*"  The  license  for  this  grant  in  mort^  Rolls,  22  Ed.  I,  353. 
main  is  dated  12  May,   1293   {Cal.  Pal.  "  or      Northpederton     in     Somerset, 

Rolls,  14),  and  its  reissue,  no  doubt  because  averred  to  have  been  taken  into  the  king's 

of  the  legal  difficulties  here  described,  was  hand  for  a  default  (ibid.  388).    The  arrear- 

of  18  August,  1295  (ibid.  140).  ages  in  question  amounted  to  105s.  which 

*'  John  of  Erley,  or  Erlegh,  son  and  was  not  discharged  until   1301   (Cal.  CI. 

heir  of  Philip  of  Erley,  from  1275  to  1292  Rolls,  29  Ed.  I,  433). 


15  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

A  nostre  seignour  le  rey  prie  Geraud  Mauhan"  qe  ad  demore  \dj  aunz 
en  dure  prison  a  la  tour  de  Londres  par  comaundement  le  tresorer,  e  des 
Barouns  del  Escheker  par  errour  e  ignoraunce  et  piir  abettement  de  ses 
enemis  a  tort  e  a  damage  du  rey,  pur  encheson  des  acontes  e  des  assays  de  la 
monee  centre  a  ceo  kil  nesteit  oblige,  e  contre  lordinaunce  de  la  monee  le 
rey  **  e  contre  usage  de  monee  dont  il  prie  a  nostre  seignour  le  rey  quil  pur 
son  prou  e  pur  dreiture  voille  assigner  Sire  vtier  dengolissme^  e  ]\Iester 
Willame  de  WjTnondham^*  gardein  du  change  a  trier  la  besoigne  par  leans 
genz  ke  seuent  de  moneyrie,  sauue  ses  enemis,  e  a  terminer  par  dreiture. 
E  entretaunt  il  prie  la  grace  le  rey,  si  ly  plest  quil  pusse  estre  deliueres  par 
meinprise  destre  prest  de  jor  en  jor  a  respondre,  e  afere  au  rey  ou  a  chescun 
home  qi  vers  ly  siet  rens  dire  des  tutes  choses  qant  que  il  fere  deuera.  E 
pur  deu  pite  vous  empregne  de  ly,  kad  demore  seet  aunz  en  dure  prison 
saunz  sa  deserte. 

Willame  sauuage"  armerer  de  Londres  se  pleint  qe  lesueke  de  Baa  a 
tort  li  detient  C.  e  x.  s.  les  queus  il  ly  dust  auer  paye  le  jor  seint  Esteuene  ** 
en  la  semaine  de  noel  derrein  passe  pur  armure  le  quel  leuauntdit  eueke 
prist  de  ly  a  force  a  son  eus  demejme  e  countre  la  volente  leuauntdit  Wil- 
lame, dont  il  prie  remedye. 

^'Dautre  part  prie  mejones  celi  maheu  del  Escheker^  qe  auditurs  li  seient 
donez  cheualers  ke  ne  seient  mie  Justices*'  pour  oier  e  terminer  les  greu- 
aunces  dont  il  se  pleint  del  Eueke  de  [sic]  de  Baa  kar  il  monstre  ke  par  la  ou 
il  fu  menc  a  Westmoster  par  prisoner  de  Flete  ke  lout  en  garde,  e  de  ceo  fu 
par  meymes  le  prisoner  garaunti*^  la  ly  fit  le  dit  Eueke  fausement  juger  quil 
aueit  la  prison  brusec  e  ly  fit  juger  a  la  tour  de  Londres  destre  ileuke  par 
ij  aunz.  E  pus  vint  le  dit  Eueke  a  la  tour,  e  li  fit  despoyller  deskes  a  la  cote, 
deschauce  saimz  ceinture,  e  saunz  Ut,  e  ly  fit  mettre  en  polard,^  e  enchesner 
en  Jordan,^  en  ij  pej-rc  de  fierges,  e  pus  fu  mis  el  neir  celer  sur  la  tere  nue, 
ou  il  fu  par  ij  aunz  saunz  nule  nule  [sic]  manere  de  feu  ou  autre  Imnere, 
ne  autre  ewe  naueit  a  beyure,  fors  ke  del  puz  de  la  tour,  ou  les  raz  se  neient. 

"  One  of  the  licensed  coiners  in  14  Ed.  money  coming  from  the  issues  of  Aqui- 

I.     Madox,  ii,  90.  taine  {Cal.  CI.  Rolls,  297).      On  several 

**  See  the  Ordinance  of  Money,  12  Ed.  I,  occasions  he  served  as  a  specially  trusted 

Statuicfi  of  tlie  Realm,   i,   219;    and   the  envoy,  and  finally  in  1297  was  the  king's 

Form  of  the  New  Money,  Bed  Boofc  o/ (Ae  proctor  at  Rome  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  234). 

Exchequer  (Rolls  Ser.),  iii,  980.  Among  ecclesiastical  preferments  he  held 

*'  As    the    name    generally    appears,  the  archdeaconry  of  Bath  and  a  canonry 

Iterius  Ingolisma,  a  king's  clerk  long  in  of  St.  Patrick's  Dutilin. 
the  service  of  the  exchequer  as  assessor,  au-  "  Known  also  as  parson  of  the  churches 

ditor  and  receiver  of  moneys.    In  1283  he  of    Dydesham    and    Barton.      Cal.    Pat. 

was  a  commissioner  to  audit  the  accounts  Rolls. 

of    the   exchange   in    Ireland    {Cal.    Pal.  "  A  name  in  Letter-books,  A,  119;    B, 

Rolls,   72),    in    1284   a   commissioner   to  9,  62. 
administer    the    king's    money    touching  *'  26  Dec.  1294. 

clipping  and  falsification  in  London  (ibid.  "  At  this  point  the  scribe  has  omitted  a 

130),  and  in  1293  to  receive  the  king's  petition  leaving  a  considerable  space  un- 


CITIZENS    OF    LONDON    V.   THE    BISHOP   OF   BATH  15 

To  our  lord  the  king  prays  Gerard  Mauhan'"  that  he  has  for  seven  years 
remained  in  strict  confinonicnt  in  the  Tower  of  London  hj-  command  of  the 
treasurer  and  barons  of  the  exchequer,  because  of  the  error  and  ignorance 
and  contrivance  of  his  enemies,  to  the  injury  and  damage  of  the  king, 
because  of  the  accounts  and  assays  of  money  beyond  what  he  was  bound, 
contrary  to  the  king's  ordinance  of  money,'*'  and  contrary  to  usage  of  the 
mint;  wherefore  he  prays  to  our  lord  the  king  that  for  his  profit  and  for 
(the  sake  of)  justice  he  may  be  wilHng  to  assign  Sir  Itier  Dcngolesme ''^ 
and  Master  WiUiam  of  Wymondham  "  warden  of  the  mint  to  examine  the 
business  by  (aid  of)  lawful  men,  who  are  acquainted  with  monetary  affairs, 
saving  his  enemies,  and  justify  to  terminate  the  matter.  In  the  meanwhile 
he  praj'S  the  lung,  if  it  pleases  him,  that  he  (the  petitioner)  may  be  delivered 
under  bonds  to  be  readj^  from  day  to  day  to  respond  and  answer,  so  far  as 
he  ought  to  answer,  the  king  or  any  man  who  may  have  anything  to  say 
against  him.  For  God's  sake  take  pity  upon  him  who  has  remained  in 
prison  seven  years  without  deserving  it. 

William  Savage^'  armourer  of  London  complains  that  the  bishop  of  Bath 
wrongfull}'  detains  from  him  110s.,  which  he  was  to  have  paid  on  St. 
Stephen's  day  "  during  the  week  of  last  Christmas  for  armour  which  the 
aforesaid  bishop  took  from  him  by  force  to  his  own  use  without  the  consent 
of  the  aforesaid  William,  wherefore  he  praj's  for  remedy. 

^'Moreover  the  same  Matthew  of  the  Exchequer^"  prays  that  auditors 
may  be  assigned  to  him,  knights  who  are  not  justices,^'  to  hear  and  determine 
the  grievances  whereof  he  complains  against  the  bishop  of  Bath,  for  he 
shows  that  whereas  he  was  brought  to  Westminster  by  the  gaoler  of  the 
Fleet  who  had  him  in  guard,  and  moreover  was  guaranteed  by  the  said 
gaoler  there, ^-  the  said  bishop  had  a  false  judgment  rendered  against  him 
that  he  had  broken  the  prison,  and  had  him  committed  to  the  Tower  of 
London  there  to  be  kept  for  two  years.  Then  came  the  said  bishop  to  the 
Tower  and  had  him  stripped  to  his  shirt,  without  shoes  or  girdle  and  with- 
out bed,  had  him  put  "  in  Polard"^'  chained  "  in  Jordan"*^  in  two  pairs  of 
fetters;  and  then  he  was  put  in  the  black  cellar  on  the  bare  ground,  where 
he  remained  for  two  years  without  any  Icind  of  fire  or  light,  nor  had  he 
anything  to  drink  except  from  the  well  of  the  Tower  where  the  rats  drown 

filled.    According  to  the  next  entry  it  was  "  This    passage    is  significant   of   the 

a  petition  of  Matthew  of  the  Exchequer.  distrust  that  was  felt  of  the  king's  justices 

*>  Named  in  1290  to  hold  the  office  of  since  the  state  trials  of  1290. 
usher  of  the  exchequer  jointly  with  Adam  "  The  laxness  of  the  keepers  of  the 
of  Stratton  (Red  Book  of  Exch.  iii,  p.  Fleet  in  letting  their  prisoners  go  at  large, 
cccxxxiii).  In  the  same  year  he  was  in-  either  with  or  without  bail,  was  notorious, 
volved  in  a  quarrel  wliich  was  heard  A  statute,  1  Rich.  II,  c.  12,  forbids  the  war- 
before  the  council  in  parliament.  Judg-  den  to  let  at  large  prisoners  in  execution, 
ment  was  not  given,  but  Matthew  was  "  These  are  unexplained  phrases.  They 
proved  to  have  been  guilty  of  deception.  may  be  nicknames  for  those  parts  of  the 
Rol.  Pari,  i,  22.  prison. 


16  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

E  cele  xie  mena  deskes  ataunt  ke  nostre  soignour  le  rev  Ic  deliuera  de  sa 
grace.  E  estre  c*o  li  toll  le  dit  eueke  tuz  ses  biens  a  la  montaunce  de  CC. 
liures,  e  imqes  ne  poeit  auer  la  meyte,  e  estre  ceo  si  enuea  le  dit  Eueke  teus 
ke  furent  a  ses  Robes  destre  en  une  Juree  pur  prendre  celj'  Maheu  e  de 
mettre  a  la  mort,  a  ses  greue  damages  de  M'  li. 

Rauf  saunsauer  prie  la  grace  nostre  seignour  le  rey  de  sicome  il  fu 
assigne  de  aler  od  mon  sire  Emund  frere  le  rey  en  gasco\-ne,"  mejTnes  cesti 
Rauf  du  gre  le  rey  demora  de  la  retaunce  sire  Willame  de  Breus=^  par 
certeins  couenaunces  de  aler  pur  li  en  gaseoine.  Cest  asauer  de  prendre  de 
li  C.  li.  des  quels  C.  li.  Rauf  recent  Ix.  li.  e  dous  cheuaus.  E  pur  ceo 
ke  les  cheuaus  ne  furent  pas  sufBsables,  il  deueit  prendre  x  mars  utre.  Et 
ala  sj-ute  sire  Willame  fu  Rauf  mene  en  Court  deuant  le  tresorer  e  les 
Barouns  del  Escheker  pur  respoundre  a  leuaimtdit  sire  Willame  dos  Ix.  li. 
6  des  dous  cheuaus.  E  Rauf  fu  e  est  tuz  jors  prest  de  tenir  a  mon  sire  Wil- 
lame totes  maneres  de  couenaunces,  e  ensi  respondi  deuaunt  le  tresorer  e 
les  Barounes  del  Escheker.  E  pur  ceo  ren  dirent  le  jugement  ke  sire  Wil- 
lame recouereist  les  be.  li.  e  les  dous  cheuaus  ou  1  mars.  E  densi  ke  Rauf 
fu  tuz  jors  prest  a  fomir  a  sire  Willame  tutes  couenaunces  e  nule  defaute  ne 
remist  en  ly,  e  ceo  unt  il  a  verreer,  prie  remedye  de  ceo  Jugement  ke  ly 
semble  dur  e  volentrifs. 

Pris  par  force  le  tresorer  saunz  taille  saunz  escrit  e  saimz  paj-ement 
armurs  de  Willame  de  Herford.^  Cest  asauer  ime  coucrturs  de  fer  pris  de 
xv]  mars.  E  ij  gounes  darmes  ^'  pris  de  xxx.  s.  E  ij  targes^  pris  de  xvj. 
s.  E  ime  pajTe  de  bras  de  balaigne*'  couert  de  cendal  blaunk,  e  gaunz  de 
suite  pris  de  xl.  s.  E  v  payre  de  gaunz  de  plates  pris  de  xxxiij.  s.  iiij.  den. 
Summa:  Lx.  li.  xLx.  s.  iiij.  den. 

"'  Meyme  celi  Willame  monstre  a  nostre  seignour  le  rey  e  se  pleint  du 
Tresorer  ke  par  la  ou  celi  Willame  aueit  du  doun  leuauntdit  sire  Phelipe 
vj  acres  de  herbage  de  hors  Londres  e  meymes  ceU  Willame  aueit  mis 
ileuke  xj  cheuaus  a  herbe  pris  de  CCC.  mars  e  le  dit  Tresorer  fit  prendre 
ceus  cheuaus  al  eus  le  rey,  e  les  prist  e  les  liuera  a  sire  Roger  de  Mouhaut 
issi  ke  le  dit  Willame  unkes  pur  ses  cheuauLX  dener  ne  poeit  auer  dont  il  est 
deuenu  poure,  e  prie  la  grace  nostre  seignour  le  rey  qil  le  face  remedie. 

Meime  celi  Willame  se  pleint  du  dit  Tresorer  qe  par  la  ou  meyme  celi 
Willame  achata  oueuke  Foun  deus  cheuaus  al  eus  le  rey  pur  C.  xvj.  li.  e  j 
marc  le  Tresorer  li  detint  les  xvj.  li.  e  le  marc,  issi  qe  il  couent  a  meymes  celi 
Willame  paier  ceus  deners  as  marchaunz  de  sa  bourse  demeyne  si  le  rey  ne 

"  This  allusion  helps  to  date  the  peti-  "  .\n  armourer  of  London,  not  to  be 

tions,  for  Edmund  of  Lancaster's  expedi-  confused  with  an  alderman  of  the  same 

tion  was  decided  upon  10  September,  1295.  name.     LcUer-books,  A,  39,  il,  &c. 

Delayed  by  ill  health  however  he  did  not  "  A  gown  known  as  surcoat  worn  over 

go  until  March,  1296.  the  armour.    Meyrick,  Antient  Armour,  i, 

"  William  of  Brewes,  Breus,  Brehus,  or  100. 

Braose  had  set  out  from  Portsmouth  on  "A  shield  held  upon  the  arm  in  dis- 

the  expedition  to  Gascony  in  September,  tinction  from  a  buckler  held  by  the  hand. 

1294.     Dugdale,  Baronage,  i,  420.  Ibid,  i,  146. 


CITIZENS   OF   LONDON    V.   THE    BISHOP    OF   BATH  16 

themselves.  This  Ufe  he  led  until  our  lord  the  king  of  his  grace  deliv- 
ered him.  Moreover  the  said  bishop  took  from  him  all  his  goods  to  the 
value  of  £200,  and  he  has  never  been  able  to  obtain  the  half  of  it; 
also  the  said  bishop  sent  men  such  as  were  of  his  livery  to  be  on  a  jury 
to  take  the  said  Matthew  and  put  him  to  death,  (causing  him)  grave 
damages  of  £1000. 

Ralph  Sansauvor  prays  for  the  grace  of  our  lord  the  king,  that  whereas 
he  was  assigned  to  go  with  Sir  Edmund  the  king's  brother  to  Gascony,"  the 
said  Ralph  by  favour  of  the  king  remained  in  the  retinue  of  Sir  William  of 
Breus"  under  certain  covenants  to  go  for  him  to  Gascon}-.  That  is,  taking 
from  him  £100,  for  which  Ralph  received  £60  and  two  horses.  And 
because  the  horses  were  not  sufficient,  he  ought  to  have  had  10  marks  more. 
And  at  the  suit  of  Sir  William  Ralph  was  brought  to  court  before  the 
treasurer  and  barons  of  the  exchequer,  to  respond  to  the  aforesaid  Sir 
W^illiam  for  the  £60  and  two  horses.  Since  Ralph  was  and  is  always 
ready  to  keep  all  kinds  of  covenant  with  my  lord  W'illiam,  he  therefore 
responded  before  the  treasurer  and  barons  of  the  exchequer.  Thereupon 
they  gave  judgment  that  Sir  William  should  recover  the  £60  and  the  two 
horses  or  50  marks.  And  because  Ralph  was  always  ready  to  perform  every 
covenant  with  Sir  William  without  default  or  remissness,  as  they  can  see, 
he  prays  for  remedj'  in  respect  of  this  judgment  which  seems  to  him  harsh 
and  arbitrary. 

Taken  by  force  of  the  treasurer  without  tally  or  writing  or  payment  the 
armour  of  William  of  Hereford.^  That  is,  a  coat  of  mail  worth  16  marks, 
2  gowns  of  arms  "  worth  30  shillings,  2  targets  =^  worth  16  shillings,  and 
a  pair  of  arm-pieces  of  whalebone  ^^  covered  with  white  sendal  together 
with  gauntlets  to  match  worth  40  shillings,  and  5  pairs  of  gauntlets  of 
plate  worth  33s.  4d.  Sum  of  £9  19s.  4d. 

^  This  same  William  shows  to  our  lord  the  king  complaining  against  the 
treasurer  that  the  said  William  had  by  gift  of  the  aforesaid  Philijj  6  acres  of 
pasture  outside  of  London,  where  the  said  William  had  placed  11  horses  to 
grass  worth  300  marks,  and  the  said  treasurer  had  these  horses  seized  to 
the  use  of  the  king,  taking  and  delivering  them  to  Roger  Mouhaut,  so  that 
the  said  William  could  never  have  money  for  his  horses,  whereby  he  has 
been  impoverished.  He  therefore  prays  the  grace  of  our  lord  the  king  to 
afford  remedy. 

This  same  William  complains  of  the  said  treasurer  that  whereas  the  said 
William  had  purchased  two  horses  with  hay  for  the  use  of  the  king  for 
£116  and  1  mark,  the  treasurer  distrained  him  of  the  £16  and  the  mark,  so 
that  it  is  incumbent  upon  the  said  William  to  pay  this  money  to  the  mer- 

"  Balon,  baleine,  balaj-n  =  whalebone  '"  There  is  another  omission  in  the  roll 

for  making  crests  of  helmets,  &c.  Ibid.  at  this  point.  Undoubtedl}'  it  is  a  petition 
Glossary.  f  of  WiUiam  Parson  mentioned  at  the  end. 


17  CASES   BEFOKE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

ly  face  grace,  dont  il  prie  sa  grace,  qar  il  est  issint  mis  a  dessuz  ke  rens  ne 
ly  est  remis. 

A  nostre  seignour  le  rey  e  a  son  conseil  monstre  Richard  le  brewere  de 
la  ville  de  Westmoster.  E  se  pleint  del  eueke  de  Baa,  qe  taunt  come  il  fu 
tresorer  nostre  seignour  le  Rey  prist  de  meyme  celi  Richard  Cerueise  ala 
montaunce  de  xlviij.  li.  xvj.  s.  vj.  den.  aky  leuauntdit  Richard  taunt  come 
il  fu  en  eel  haut  office  nosast  contredire,  ne  son  chatel  pin-  pour  demprisone- 
ment  ne  osast  demaunder,  mes  eel  argent  ly  ad  detenu  un  an  e  plus  dunt 
memes  ceh  Richard  issi  est  enpoueri  qe  il  ad  vendu  ses  mesons  e  qant  qe  il 
out  pin-  payer  a  marchauns  une  parti  de  ceo  qe  il  lur  deueyt  pur  ble  a  memes 
cele  ceiiieyse  apromte.  E  ore  ne  pout  il  rien  prendre  a  creance  pur  ceo  qe 
il  deyt  taunt  a  marchauns  e  tant  a  desouth  par  cele  dette,  mes  le  auauntdit 
Richard  e  sa  fcmme  e  lour  enfaiinz  enpoynt  de  aler  payn  querant,  si  nostre 
seignour  le  Rey  e  son  conseil  ne  luy  facent  remedie  par  tens,  dont  il  pri 
remedie  pur  dieu. 

A  honurablc  rey  dcngletere  e  a  son  conseil  prie  Johan  Bone  de  AValingford 
ke  come  il  estoit  aucun  tens  tenuz  a  sire  Adam  de  Strattone  ^'  en  xviij .  li. 
dargent  par  une  reconisaimce  fete  al  escheker  nostre  seignour  le  rey  les 
queus  x\'iij.  li.  leuauntdit  Johan  paia  bien  e  leaument  soloni  les  termes 
contenuz  en  la  reconisaunz,  issint  ke  rens  ne  est  arere  lontens  auaunt  son 
forfet,  e  des  queus  soutes  lauauntdit  Johan  aueit  bones  aquitaunces  ense- 
lees  du  seel  meime  sire  Adam  come  reson  voleit,  mes  le  tresorer  nostre 
seignour  le  rey  ad  fet  sercher  tutes  les  reconissaunces  les  queles  furent  fetes 
a  meyme  ceU  sire  Adam  en  tens  kil  fust  el  seruise  nostre  seignour  le  rey.  E 
les  fist  venir  par  ses  Brefs  del  escheker  a  respoundre  a  nostre  seignour  le 
rey  de  meimes  les  dettes.  Johan  Bone  de  Walingford  un  de  ceus  ke  ceste 
grace  prie  est  a  resone  par  le  tresorer  en  plein  escheker  sur  les  auauntdit 
xviij.  li.  par  la  rcconissaunce,  e  les  respons  est,  e  sa  alegaunce,  tuz  jors  ke 
il  aueit  ses  aquitaunces  bones  fetes  longtens  auaunt  le  forfet  sire  Adam,  les 
queles  valer  ly  dussent  sil  les  pout  auer  eu  en  jugement,  mes  il  nel  poeit 
mie  auer  a  cele  hurc  en  alegeauncc  de  ly  par  la  reson  de  une  forte  meschaunce 
ke  ly  auint  sodeinement  taunt  come  il  fust  hors  du  pays.  Cest  a  dire  ke  la 
meschaunce  fust  i  cele  ke  le  priur  de  Walingford  ^=  oue  sa  suite  e  la  femme 
lauauntdit  Johan  Bone  par  une  mauueise  compassement  entre  eus  fet 
nuytauntre  robercnt  qantque  Johan  aueit  de  meoble,  cest  adire,  come  en 
tresor  de  seon  et  de  autry,  e  un  forcer  oueuke  ses  jueaus  en  quel  ces  aqui- 
taunces furent,  emporterent,  issint  qe  les  aquitaunces  qe  li  dussent  auer 

•'  The  notorious  clerk  and  chamberLain  Book  of  Exch.  iii,  p.  cccxv).    What  is  now 

of  the  exchequer  who  made  a  fortune  by  alleged  is  closely  in  line  with  the  charges 

his    peculations.      He    was    a    principal  previously  laid  against  him,  that  he  would 

defendant  in  the  state  trials  of  1290,  as  a  decoy  men  into  debt  and  then  employ  the 

result   of   which   he   was   removed   from  agencies  of  the  exchequer  against  them, 

office  and  his  property  confiscated  (State  Although  Stratton  had  been  pardoned  by 

Trials  [Camden  Soc.],  85,  87;    also  Red  the  king,  in  consideration  of  500  marks, 


CITIZENS   OF   LONDON    V.   THE    BISHOP    OF   BATH  17 

chiints  out  of  his  own  purse,  unless  the  kinj;;  sliows  liini  favour;  wherefore  he 
prays  for  grace,  sinee  he  is  so  reduced  tliat  nolliing  is  left  to  liini. 

To  our  lord  the  king  and  his  council  shows  Richard  the  brewer  of  the 
town  of  Westminster,  complaining  against  the  l)isho]i  of  Rath  who,  while 
he  was  treasurer  of  our  lord  tlie  king,  took  from  liie  said  llic^hard  beer  to 
the  value  of  £18  16s.  Gd.,  for  so  long  as  the  bishop  was  in  this  high  office  the 
aforesaid  Richard  did  not  dare  to  refuse  him,  nor  did  he  dare  to  demand  his 
chattel  because  of  (the  bishop's)  power  of  imprisoiunent,  but  tiiis  money  was 
kept  from  him  for  more  than  a  year,  whereby  the  said  Richard  is  so  im- 
jioverished  that  he  has  sold  his  house  and  all  that  he  has,  in  order  to  pay 
merchants  a  part  of  the  debt  he  owes  them  for  corn  (to  make)  this  beer. 
But  now  he  can  not  borrow  anything,  because  he  owes  the  merchants  so 
much  and  is  so  much  in  arrear  by  this  debt,  but  the  aforesaid  Richard,  his 
wife  and  children  arc  nigh  to  paying  the  penalty,  unless  our  lord  the  king 
and  his  council  afford  remedy  in  time,  wherefore  he  prays  remedy  for 
God's  sake. 

To  the  honorable  king  of  England  and  his  council  prays  John  Bone  of 
Wallingford  that  whereas  he  was  once  bound  to  Sir  Adam  of  Stratton*'  in 
£18  of  silver  by  a  recognisance  made  at  the  exchequer  of  our  lord  the  king, 
which  £18  the  said  John  well  and  loyally  paid  according  to  the  terms  of  the 
recognisance,  so  that  nothing  is  in  arrears  a  long  time  before  his  forfeiture 
and  of  these  pajanents  the  said  John  had  good  acquittances  ensealed  with 
the  seal  of  the  same  Sir  Adam  as  is  reasonable,  but  the  treasurer  of  our  lord 
the  king  has  had  all  the  recognisances  searched  which  were  made  to  the 
same  Sir  Adam  during  the  time  that  he  was  in  the  service  of  our  lord  the 
king.  And  he  made  them  come  by  his  writs  of  the  exchequer  to  answer  our 
lord  the  king  for  the  same  debts.  John  Bone  of  Wallingford,  one  of  those 
who  prays  for  this  grace,  is  arraigned  by  the  treasurer  in  full  ex(;hequer  for 
the  aforesaid  £18  by  virtue  of  the  recognisance;  and  the  answer  is,  and  his 
plea,  in  that  he  had  made  good  his  acquittances  a  long  time  before  the  for- 
feiture (of)  Sir  Adam,  which  (acquittances)  should  have  availed  him  if  he 
could  ha\^e  had  them  in  judgment,  but  he  could  not  possibly  have  them  at 
this  time  in  allowance  by  reason  of  a  severe  mischance  that  had  sud- 
denly happened  to  him  in  that  he  was  out  of  the  country.  That  is  to  say, 
the  mischance  was  that  the  prior  of  Wallingford"-  with  his  followers  and 
the  wife  of  John  Bone,  by  an  evil  design  wrought  between  them  by 
night,  stole  whatever  moveables  John  had,  that  is,  such  as  were  treas- 
ure of  himself  and  others,  and  a  strong-box  with  his  jewels,  in  which 
his  acquittances  were,  bore  them  away,  so  that  the  acquittances  which 

his  properties  continued  to  be  held  in  hand  release.    The  murder  of  Stratton  is  men- 

and  managed  by  the  exchequer.    As  in  the  tioned  in  1304  (Col.  CI.  Rolls,  212). 
present    case,    Stratton's    debtors    were  "  A  Benedictine  priory  in  Berkshire, 

answerable  to  the  king  of  whom  the  peti-  cell    to    St.    Albans'    Abbey.      Dugdale, 

tioner,   for  the  reasons  alleged,   seeks  a  Monas.  iii,  278. 


18  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

valu  en  ceo  cas  furent  emportez  par  quey  Johan  Bone  prie  grace  nostre 
seignour  le  rey  ke  il  ly  voille  granter  qil  pusse  auer  auerrement  par  bon  pais 
de  la  soute  fete  a  sire  Adam  de  Strattone,  e  qil  aueit  les  aquitances  auaunt 
le  forfet  sire  Adam. 

[The  part  in  italics  has  been  struck  through :  — ]  Iste  peticiones  deficiunt 
videlicet  peticio  J.  de  Erleye  de  recognidone.  Item  alia  ejusdem  J.  de  Erleye  de 
Releuio.  Peticio  Gerardi  Mauhan.  Peticio  Willelmi  Sauuays.  Peticio  Maheu 
del  Escheker  que  sic  incipit,  De  autre  part  prie  meyme  cely  maheu.  Item 
peticio  Radulfi  Saunzauer.    Peticio  Willelmi  Persone  in  duobus  articulis. 

[Endorsed:  — ]   Tangunt  Episcopum  Bathon'. 

THE  BISHOP  OF  SABINA  v.  BEDEWYNDE ' 

1307  Dominus  Rex  mandauit  consiUo  suo  existenti  London'  breue  suum  de 
Ebor.'  De  piiuato  sigillo,  quod  residet  ad  scaccarium  inter  communia  de  hoc  anno 
Thesauraria  xxx-v'°  in  hec  Verba: 

riboraci  data 

waitero  de  Edward  par  la  grace  de  dieu  Roi  Dengleterre,  Seigneur  Dirlaund', 

Bedew-ynd'  Ducs  DacQuitanie,  a  nos  foiaux  et  loiaux  les  honurables  peres  en  dieu 

per  Regem  ,  '  * 

par  la  meisme  grace  R.-  Euesqe  de  Loundres,  nostre  Chauncellier  et  W.' 
Euesqe  de  Cestre,  nostre  Tresorier,  Henri  de  Lacy  ^  Counte  de  Nichole, 
nostre  chier  Cosyn  Guy  ^  Counte  de  Warrewyk'  et  as  autres  de  nostre 
Conseil  a  Loundres,  salutz.  Pur  ceo  qe  qant  a  la  requeste  qe  loneurable 
pere  en  dieu  Pieres,'  par  la  meisme  grace  Euesqe  de  Sabjnoe,  Cardinal  de 
la  seinte  Eglise  de  Rome,  nous  fist  entre  les  autres  choses  dont  il  nous 
parla,  pur  celui  qe  fu  Tresorier  en  leglise  Deuerwyk,  endreit  de  meisme 
la  Tresorie,  nous  lui  respoundismes  qe  nous  ferriens  cele  busoigne  a  sa 
moustraunce  examiner  par  ceux  de  nostre  consail  si  qil  en  ordeiuereient 
quel  enferroit  a  faire  par  resoun  vous  mandoms  qe  oye  la  mustraunce  qe 
le  dit  Cardinal  voudra  faire  deuant  vous,  en  dreit  de  la  dite  Tresorie, 
examinez  bien  et  diligeaument  la  busoigne,  et  ordinez  en  tieu  manere  qe 
le  dreit  de  nostre  Corone  et  le  dreit  de  nostre  chier  clerk  Wautier  de 
Bedewynde,'  a  qi  nous  auoms  done  la  dite  Tresorie  entierement  oue  tutz 

'  The   record    is   in    Memoranda    Roll  questions  that  were  to  be  raised  at  the 

(Exch.  K.  R.),  35  Ed.  I,  mm.  4I-42d.  coming  parliament  at  Carlisle.    He  seems 

'  Ralph  of  Baldock.    Did.  Nat.  Biog.  to  have  arrived  in  England  some  time  in 

'  Walter  of  Langton.     Ibid.  March,  1307  {Cal.  CI.  RolU,  491),  and  made 

*  Ibid.;    Dugdale,  Baromige,  i,  103.  his  way  to  Carlisle  where  he  was  in  com- 
'  Guy  of  Bcauchamp,  Did.  iXat.  Biog.  munication  with  the  king  during  the  par- 

•  Commonly  called  Peter  of  Spain,  liament  and  for  a  short  time  afterwards. 
bishop  of  Burgos  and  cardinal  bishop  of  Here  the  principal  concern  was  in  the 
Sabina.  He  had  been  sent  by  Boniface  matter  of  annates.  Although  the  cardinal 
VIII  as  legate  a  latere,  ostensibly  to  treat  could  not  stem  the  tide  of  legislation,  he 
for  peace  between  England  and  France,  succeeded  at  least  in  modifying  the  king's 
but  actually  to  deal  with  the  ecclesiastical  ensuing  orders.    The  question  of  provisors 


BISHOP   OF   SABINA    V.   BEDEWYNDE 


18 


ought  to  have  availed  him  in  this  case  have  been  carried  off;  wherefore 
John  Bone  prays  for  the  grace  of  our  lord  the  king  to  grant  that  he  may 
have  averment  in  good  peace  of  the  payment  made  to  Sir  Adam  of  Stratton 
and  that  he  had  the  acquittances  (made)  before  the  forfeiture  (of)  Sir 
Adam. 

[The  part  in  italics  has  been  struck  through  :^  The  following  petitions  are 
lacking:  the  petition  of  John  of  Eiiey  concerning  a  recognisance;  also  another  of 
the  same  J.  of  Erley  concerning  a  relief;  petition  of  Gerard  Mauhan;  petition  of 
William  Savage;  petition  of  Matthew  of  the  Exchequer  which  begins  "  More- 
over the  same  Matthew  prays  ";  also  the  petition  of  Ralph  Sansauver;  petition 
of  William  Parson  in  two  articles. 

[Endorsed:  — ]   Concerning  the  bishop  of  Bath. 


1307 

York. 
Touching 
the  Treas- 
urerehip  of 
York  given 
by  the  King 
to  Walter  of 
Bedewynde 


THE  BISHOP  OF  SABINA  v.  BEDEWYNDE' 

The  lord  the  king  sent  to  his  council  remaining  at  London  his  writ  under 
the  privy  seal,  which  remains  at  the  exchequer  among  the  common  matters 
of  this  the  35th  year  and  runs  as  follows: 

Edward,  by  the  grace  of  God  king  of  England,  lord  of  Ireland,  duke  of 
Aquitaine,  to  our  faithful  and  loyal,  the  honourable  fathers  in  God  by 
the  same  grace  R.^  bishop  of  London  our  chancellor,  and  W.'  bishop  of 
Chester  our  treasurer,  Henry  of  Lacy  *  earl  of  Lincoln,  our  dear  cousin 
Guy '  earl  of  Warwick,  and  others  of  our  council  at  London,  greeting. 
Whereas  at  the  request  made  to  us  by  the  honourable  father  in  God, 
Peter,"  by  the  same  grace  bishop  of  Sabina,  cardinal  of  the  holy  church 
of  Rome,  among  other  things  whereof  he  speaks  to  us,  in  behalf  of  the 
late  treasurer  of  the  church  of  York,  in  regard  to  the  same  treasurer- 
ship,  we  have  answered  him  that  at  his  suggestion  we  should  have  this 
matt«r  examined  by  the  men  of  our  council,  who  should  ordain  what 
should  be  done  according  to  reason;  we  (therefore)  command  you,  that 
having  heard  the  statement  which  the  said  cardinal  will  make  before 
you  in  regard  to  the  said  treasurership,  after  examining  the  matter  well 
and  diligently,  you  ordain  whatever  shall  guard  in  all  points  the  right 
of  our  crown  and  the  right  of  our  dear  clerk  Walter  of  Bedewynde '  to 


was  of  less  moment.  On  the  treasurership 
of  York  now  in  dispute  he  drew  up  the 
present  petition  but  left  the  prosecution 
in  the  hands  of  a  proctor.  Before  his  de- 
parture he  was  granted  by  the  king  an 
annuity  of  £50  and  many  procurations 
(Col.  Fat.  Rolls,  530).  He  left  the  kingdom 
apparently  in  July  {Col.  CI.  Rolls,  510). 

'  Betewynd  or  Bedewind,  a  clerk 
whose  career  in  the  king's  service  can  be 
traced  since  1298.     In  the  present  year 


1307  he  is  mentioned  as  cofferer  in  the 
wardrobe  (Col.  Pat.  Rolls,  495).  His  con- 
fidential relations  with  the  king  are 
attested  in  the  letters  patent  that  were 
granted  "  on  information  of  Walter  de 
Bedewynde"  (Ibid.  434,  4S2).  He  was 
given  in  reward  the  churches  of  Kilpatrick 
on  Clyde,  Heyford  Warj-n,  Wysteineston, 
Steventon,  a  prebend  in  the  chapel  of 
Hastings  and  the  prebend  of  Morvill 
(ibid.).     The  grant  of  the  treasurership  of 


19  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

ses  dreitz  et  tutes  apurtenaimces,  et  en  qi  nous  la  voucheoms  bien 
sauue,  seient  gardetz  en  toutz  pointz,  si  auaunt  come  dreit  et  reison  le 
purront  suffiir,  les  queux  choses  sunt  passeez  deuaunt  vous  auaunt  ces 
houres  *  a  ceo  qe  nous  auoms  entendu.  Et  si  vous  truffez  qe  nous  eoms 
donez  la  dite  Tresorie  a  nostre  dit  clerk  par  dreit  de  nostre  Corone,  et  11 
eit  dreit  de  la  tenir  par  ni}^  nostre  doun,  la  queu  chose  nous  entendoms 
blen,  a  donqes  11  facez  faire  lettres  souz  nostre  grant  seal,  tantz  et  tleles 
come  entre  vous  verrez  qe  mester  lui  aueront,  et  qant  11  aura  busoign 
pur  meintenlr  son  dreit  et  sa  possession  de  la  Tresorie  auauntdite,  si  qil 
en  puisse  joler  solonc  nostre  doun  auauntdit.  Et  qant  vous  aurez  ensi 
trlez  et  declarez  nostre  dreit,  ordinetz  entre  vous  acune  bone  et  couen- 
able  fourme  par  la  quele  vous  facez  enfourmer  nostre  piere  le  Pape  de 
par  nous  sour  nostre  dreit  auaunt  dlt  en  la  meilleure  manere  qe  vous 
verrez  qe  face  a  faire,  et  apres  ceo  nous  certifiez  pleinement  coment 
vous  auretz  totes  ces  choses  ordenees  et  faltes.  Done  souz  nostre 
priue  seal  a  Cardoill' '  le  xxvj  jour  Dauerll  Ian  de  nostre  regne  tren- 
tlsme  quinte. 

Et  prefato  consllio  Regis  exlstente  apud  Westmonasterium  ad  scacca- 
rium  Ipsius  domlni  Regis  modo  in  crastino  Ascensionis  Domini'"  optulit  se 
coram    eodem   consllio   quidam  "   ex   parte   predictl   Cardlnalls   et 

exhlbuit  quandam  peticionem  coram  eodem  consllio  in  hec  verba: 

Vacante  olim  Thesauraria  Ebor'  apud  sedem  apostolicam  per  priua- 
cionem  domlni  Johannis  de  sancto  ^^co  de  domo  Colmnpnensium,'- 
collata  fuit  ipsa  Thesauraria  domino  Theobaldo  de  Baro  "  per  dominum 
Bonlfacium  Papam  Octauum,  ipseque  domlnus  Theobaldus  ad  illam 
ex  collacione  predicta  receptus  fuit,  et  eam  notorie  possedit  per  sex 
annos  vel  circa  pacifice  et  qulete,  domino  Rege  Anglie  lllustrl  sciente 
fauente  et  lltteras  attornatl'*  sibl  pro  ilia  concedente;  postmodum 
autem  ipso  domino  Theobaldo  promote  et  consecrato  in  Romana  Cur^a 
auctoritate  elusdem  domlni  Pape  in  Episcopum  Leodiensem,  et  per  hoc 

York  now  in  dispute  is  dated  1  Nov.  1306.  '  The  parliament  closed  in  March  but 

One    other   office    was   granted    to    him,  the  king's  letters  are  dated  from  here  until 

namely  that  of   king's   remembrancer  in  the  end  of  June. 

the  exchequer  under  Edward  II,  but  this  '"  5  May. 

he  gave  up  within  two  years  [Col.  Pat.  3  "  The  scribe  has  left  this  space  vacant 
Ed.  II,  220).  Besides  the  claims  of  the  apparently  with  the  intention  of  filling  it 
papal  provisor,  he  had  to  contest  a  suit  later.  Lower  down  in  the  record  the  car- 
begun  by  the  parson  of  St.  Gregory  touch-  dinal's  proctor  is  mentioned  as  a  clerk, 
ing  certain  properties  in  connection  with  '-  Fifth  son  of  John  Colonna,  Senator 
the  treasurership  {Year  Books,  3  &  4  Ed.  and  dictator  of  Rome  in  1290  (Gregoro- 
II  (Selden  Soc),  13,  207).  On  his  lifelong  vius,  Rotne  in  the  Middle  Ages  [trans, 
struggle  to  hold  the  treasurership  against  Hamilton),  v,  513,  541).  This  John  was 
the  claims  of  the  papacy,  see  Introd.  pp.  a  papal  provisor  to  the  trca.surcrship  of 
Ixi-lxii.  York  in  1293,  and  in  the  next  year  was 
'  The  matter  was  previously  referred  provided  to  the  archdeaconry  of  Hunting- 
to  the  council  by  a  writ  of  18  February,  don  by  Celestine  V  and  to  the  prebend  of 
Rot.  Pari,  i,  218.  Leighton  Manor  dio.  Lincoln  (Le  Neve, 


BISHOP   OF   SABINA    V.    BEDEWYNDE  19 

whom  we  have  given  the  said  treasurcrship  entire  with  all  its  rights  and 
appurtenances,  and  in  whose  hands  we  trust  it  is  quite  safe;  (do  this) 
as  (we  have  said)  before  according  to  right  and  reason,  for  this  matter, 
as  we  have  understood,  has  previously '  come  before  you.  And  if  you 
find  that  we  have  given  the  said  treasurcrship  to  our  said  clerk  accord- 
ing to  the  right  of  our  crown,  and  if  he  has  the  right  to  hold  it  according 
to  our  gift,  as  we  fully  beUeve  (he  has),  then  do  you  cause  letters  under 
our  great  seal  to  be  issued  to  him,  whatever  j^ou  yourselves  shall  find 
there  is  occasion  for,  and  so  far  as  there  shall  be  need,  in  order  to  main- 
tain his  right  and  his  possession  of  the  aforesaid  treasurcrship,  so  that 
he  may  enjoy  it  according  to  our  aforesaid  gift.  And  when  j'ou  shall 
have  thus  tried  and  declaretl  our  right,  do  you  yourselves  decide  upon 
some  good  and  suitable  instrument  whereby  you  will  in  our  behalf 
inform  our  father  the  pope  in  regard  to  our  aforesaid  right,  in  the  best 
way  that  you  can;  and  then  do  you  certify  us  fully  how  you  have 
ordained  and  done  everything.  Given  under  our  privy  seal  at  Carlisle ' 
on  the  26th  day  of  April  in  the  35th  year  of  our  reign. 
To  the  aforesaid  council  of  the  king  remaining  in  the  exchequer  of  the 
lord  the  king  at  Westminster,  on  the  day  after  Ascension  Day,'"  there 
appeared  before  the  said  council  in  behalf  of  the  said  cardinal  a  certain 
[clerk],"  who  presented  to  the  said  council  a  certain  petition  containing  the 
following  words: 

At  the  time  the  treasurcrship  of  York  was  vacant  at  the  apostolic  see 
through  the  privation  of  John  de  Sancto  Vito  of  the  house  of  Colonna," 
the  said  treasurcrship  was  conferred  by  Pope  Boniface  VIII  upon  Theo- 
bald dc  Bar,"  and  this  Lord  Theobald  by  virtue  of  the  aforesaid  collation 
was  admitted  to  the  treasurcrship,  which  he  is  known  to  have  possessed 
quietly  and  in  peace  for  six  years  or  thereabout,  with  the  knowledge 
and  favour  of  the  illustrious  lord  king  of  England  who  granted  him 
letters  of  attorney  '^  in  regard  to  it.  But  after  the  said  Lord  Theo- 
bald by  authority  of  the  said  lord  the  pope  had  been  promoted  and 
consecrated  in  the  Roman  curia  as  bishop  of  Liege,  and  when  for  this 

Fasti,  ii,  49,  159,  176).     How  he  and  all  (ibid.  261).     On  the  Continent  he  was  a 

other  members  of  his  family  were  deposed  canon  of  Rheims,   and  in   1297   was  the 

in  129.5  is  told  below.  candidate  of  a  part  of  the  chapter  for  the 

"  de  Barres,  or  Bar-le-Duc,   held   the  bishopric  of   Metz   {Cat.   Pal.   Rolls,  97). 

treasurership  from  1297  to  1303,  when  he  King  Edward  gave  him  first  phice  among 

was  made  bishop  of  Liege  (Le  Neve,  ii,  the  receivers  of  the  lands  of  his  brother, 

139).    He  was  a  brother  of  Henry  Count  of  whose  death  was  reported  in  1302  {Cal. 

Bar  the  husljand  of  King  Edward's  eldest  CI.  30  Ed.  I,  605,  600).    He  was  bishop  of 

daughter,  and  was  honoured  by  the  king  Li(5ge   from    1303    to    1312    (Gams,    Ser. 

as  a  relative.    He  had  gained  other  eerie-  Epis.). 

siastical  preferments  in  England,  including  '<  No    letters   of    attorney  have   been 

a  presentation  to  the  church  of  Pagham  noted,  but  in  1297  he  was  granted  letters 

dio.  Canterbury  in  1294  (Cat.  Pat.  Polls,  of  protection  for  staying  beyond  seas  for 

66)  and  the  prebend  of  Banbury  in  1297  two  years.    Cal.  Pal.  Rolls,  229. 


20  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

eadem  Thesauraria  apud  ipsam  sedem  vacante,  ipse  dominus  Papa 
contulit  earn  domino  Francisco  Gaytano^'  nepoti  suo  plena  sede  Ebor', 
quam  ipse  dominus  Franciscus  pacLfice  adeptus  fuit,  et  usque  ad  men- 
sem Februarii  proximum  preteritum  quiete,  notorie  et  sine  contradicci- 
one  possedit,  quinimmo  dominus  Rex  manutenuit  eum  in  ilia,  concedens 
sibi  pro  ilia  litteras  attornati,  contra  que  propter  premissa  de  iure 
veniri  non  debet;  verum  ad  suggestionem  aliquorum,  ipso  domino 
Francisco  non  monito  nee  citato  legitime,  set  in  remotis  agente  notorie, 
scilicet  in  Anagina,  ex  dispensacione  tamen  apostolice  sedis,  nee  pro- 
curatorem  habente  super  hoc,  nee  debente  habere,  cum  alias  non  esset 
sibi  mota  questio  super  iure  dicte  Thesaurarie,  nee  speraretur  moueri, 
cum  esset  in  pacifica  possessione  eiusdem  et  fuisset  per  triennium  et 
ultra,  nuUo  reclamante,  ipse  dominus  Rex  Thesaurariam  ipsam  Waltero 
de  BedewjTide  contulit,  et  ipsum  in  illius  possessione  mandauit  induci, 
et  inductus  fuit,  et  sic  ipse  dominus  Franciscus  est  ilia  indebite  spoliatus. 
Quare  cum  ex  premissis  appareat  manifeste  dictum  dominum  Francis- 
cum  habuisse  et  habere  plenum  ius  in  dicta  Thesauraria,  et  eam  pacifice 
possedisse,  ac  ea  que  contra  eundem  in  premissis  sunt  attemptata  facta 
esse  iniuriose  et  contra  iusticiam,  et  eciam  quia  fuit  inhibituni  familiari- 
bus  ipsius  domini  Francisci  et  omnibus  ahis  ius  suum  volentibus  pro- 
ponere,  seu  eciam  allegare,  sub  pena  capcionis  per  htteras  Regias,  quas 
non  est  verisimile  nee  creditur  de  dicti  domini  Regis  consciencia  ema- 
nasse,  quorum  familianun  duo  adhuc  detinentur  attachiati,  sciUcet 
Magister  Franciscus  de  Luco,'^  Capellanus  domini  Francisci  Cardinalis," 
et  Thomas,  nepos  eius,  contra  deum  et  iusticiam,  licet  in  nullo  deli- 
querint,  placeat  per  vos  dicta  grauamina  tolU  et  reuocari,  et  quod  dictus 
dominus  Franciscus  sine  molestia  et  contradiccione  cuiusquam  dictam 
Thesaurariam  et  iura  ipsius  pacific*  possidere  valeat  et  habere. 
Et  peticione  ilia  plenius  intellecta  quesitum  est  a  prefato  "qui 
eandem  peticionem  exhibuit,  si  quid  aUud  ex  parte  prefati  Cardinalis,  seu 
pro  parte  predicti  Francisci  super  premissis  velit  dicere  vel  exponere,  quam 
ea  que  continentur  in  peticione  predicta,  seu  aliquid  in  ipsa  contentum 
ulterius  declarare  etc.;  qui  dicit  quod  non,  set  instanter  petit  prefatum 
Franciscum   ad   possessionem    predicte  Thesaurarie  admitti  et     restitui 

"  Son    of    Peter   Count    of   Caserta,  Theobald  de  Bar.    His  claim  to  this  posi- 

nephew    of    Cardinal    Francis    Gaetano  tion,    which   is   now   disputed   by    Bede- 

mentioned   below,   and   grand-nephew   of  wj-nde,    he    maintained    through    a    long 

Pope  Boniface  VIII  (Gregorovius,  v,  540).  course  of  litigation  until   l.'UG,   when  he 

Besides  the  prebends  of   Knaresborough  lost  all  hi.s  benefices  by  a  determination  to 

and  Stillington  dio.  York  (Le  Neve,  iii,  marry.     (Ibid,  ii,  344.) 

196,  212),  he  held  also  the  treasurership  '•  At  the  request  of  Cardinal  Francis 

of  Tours  and  canonries  and  prebends  in  Gaetano  he  was  provided  by  the  pope  in 

Rome,    Paris    and    Anagni    (Co/.    Papal  1316  to  a  canonry  and  prebend  in  the  see 

Letters,  i,  611).     In  May,  1303,  the  pope  of  York  (Col.  Pap.  Letters,  i,   125).     He 

further  provided  him  to  the  treasurership  was  holding  the  prebend  of  Laughton-en- 

of  York  then  voided  by  the  promotion  of  le-Morthen  in  1318  (Le  Neve,  ii,  200). 


BISHOP   OF   SABINA   V.   BEDEWYNDE  20 

reason  the  said  treasurersliip  was  vacant  at  the  said  (apostolic)  see,  the 
said  lord  the  pope  conferred  it  upon  his  nephew  Lord  Francis  Gae- 
tano,'*  the  see  of  York  being  filled  (at  the  time)  which  the  said  Lord 
Francis  peacefully  secured,  and  until  tlic  hvst  month  of  February  pos- 
sessed quietly,  conspicuously  and  without  dispute;  nay  the  lord  the 
king  maintained  him  there,  granting  him  letters  of  attorney  in  respect 
of  it,  against  which,  because  of  what  has  been  said,  nothing  rightfully 
ought  to  be  brought;  but  at  the  suggestion  of  some,  although  Lord 
Francis  himself  was  neither  warned  nor  legitimately  cited,  but  while  he 
was  knowTi  to  be  abroad,  namely  in  Anagni,  by  dispensation  indeed  of 
the  apostoUc  see,  when  he  had  no  proctor  for  the  matter  and  was  not 
bound  to  have  any,  since  no  question  had  previously  been  raised  or  was 
expected  to  be  raised  against  him  as  to  the  right  of  the  said  treasurer- 
ship,  since  he  was  in  peaceful  possession  of  the  same  and  had  been  for 
three  years  and  more,  the  lord  the  king  himself  bestowed  it  upon 
Walter  of  Bedcwynde  and  commanded  that  he  be  given  possession  of  it, 
and  (accordingly)  he  was  inducted,  so  that  the  said  Lord  Francis  was 
wrongfully  deprived  of  it.  AVhereas  it  is  manifestly  evident  from  the 
premises  that  the  said  Lord  Francis  has  had  and  (still)  has  full  right  to 
the  said  treasurership,  and  has  possessed  it  in  peace,  and  that  those 
things  which  had  been  attempted  against  hun  in  the  premises  had  been 
done  wrongfully  and  contrary  to  justice,  moreover  since  the  servants  of 
the  said  Lord  Francis  and  all  others  wishing  to  assert  his  right,  or  even 
to  allege  it,  had  been  forbidden  under  penalty  of  arrest  by  royal  letters, 
which  it  is  not  probable  or  credible  have  been  dictated  by  the  conscience 
of  the  said  lord  the  king,  and  (since)  two  of  these  servants  have  been 
attached  and  detained,  namely  Master  Francis  de  Luco,'^  chaplain  of 
the  Lord  Cardinal  Francis  "  and  Thomas  his  nephew,  against  God  and 
justice,  although  they  have  been  deUnquent  in  nothing,  may  it  please 
you  to  remove  and  revoke  the  said  grievances,  and  may  the  said  Lord 
Francis  without  being  molested  or  disputed  by  anyone  be  able  to 
possess  and  hold  in  peace  the  said  treasurership  and  his  rights. 
This  petition  having  been  fully  understood  it  was  asked  of  the  aforesaid 
[clerk]  who  had  presented  the  said  petition,  whether  he  had  anytliing  else 
to  say  or  to  explain  in  regard  to  the  premises  in  behalf  of  the  aforesaid 
cardinal  or  the  aforesaid  Francis,  beyond  what  is  contained  in  the  aforesaid 
petition,  or  if  he  wished  to  set  forth  further  anything  that  is  contained  in  it 
etc.     He  said  not,  but  instantly  he  asked  that  the  aforesaid  Francis  be 

"  Francis  Gaetano  of  Anagni,   son  of  (Cal.  Pal.  2  Ed.  II,  111,  176;    4  Ed.  II, 

Loffred  brother  of  Boniface  VIII,  Cardi-  353).     The   Cardinal   was   among   those 

nal  of  St.  Mary's  in  Cosmedin.     He  was  named  by  Edward  I  from  year  to  year  to 

papal   provisor   to   the   archdeaconry   of  expedite    his    business    at    the    court    of 

Richmond  (Le  Neve,  iii,  137),  which  he  Rome  {Cal.  CI.  32  Ed.  I,  213;   33  Ed.  I, 

continued  to  hold  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  312&C.).    He  continued  to  have  interests  in 

Edward  II  to  present  a  royal  candidate  England  until  his  death  at  Avignon  in  1317. 


21  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

habendam  inxta  tenorem  coUacionis  prefati  sumini  Pontificis.  Et  dictum 
est  ei  quod  expectet  de  die  in  diem  quousque  etc.  Et  concordatum  est  per 
predictum  consilium  Regis  quod,  antequam  ulterius  inde  etc.,  scrutati  sint 
rotuli  et  alia  memoranda  super  iure  Regis  et  statu  prefati  Walteri  in  hac 
parte.  Et  iniunctum  est  eidem  Waltero  presenti  etc.  quod  ipse  e.x  parte 
sua  inquirat  et  scrutari  faciat  quiequid  competere  poterit  super  iure  Regis 
et  statu  sue  etc.  et  euidencias  quas  inde  etc.  ostendat  et  proponat  etc.  Et 
scrutatis  memorandis  super  iure  Regis  etc.,  compertuni  est  ad  scaccarium 
in  rotulo  xxix°  Regis  nunc  rotulo  compotorum,  videlicet  in  tercio  rotulo 
compoti  Johannis  de  Lj-legreyns*'  de  Escaetis  Regis  ultra  Trentam  et  de 
exitibus  Archiepiscopatus  Ebor',  sede  vacante,  quod  Archiepiscopatus 
predictus  vacauit  per  mortem  I.  le  Romeyn,'^  nuper  Archiepiscopi  ibidem, 
a  sdj"  die  Marcii  anno  xxiiij'",  quo  die  idem  Archiepiscopus  obiit,  et  fuit  in 
manu  Regis  ab  eodem  die  racione  vacacionis  iUius,  et  quod  idem  Escaetor 
respondit  Regi  de  exitibus  inde  ab  eodem  xij°  die  ^Marciusque  xxij°  die 
Junii  anno  xxv'°  antequam  Rex  restitueret  temporalia  predicti  Archiepis- 
copatus Magistro  Henrico  de  Newerk^  Electo  in  Arcliiepiscopum  etc.  Et 
Walterus  de  Bedewj-nde  super  hoc  pro  domino  Rege  et  se  ipso  dicit  quod 
de  eo  quod  predieta  Thesauraria  Ebor'  vacauit  tempore  vacacionis  pre- 
dicti Archiepiscopatus  existentis  in  manu  ipsius  Regis,  ipse  dominus  Rex, 
ad  quem  collacio  tarn  eiusdem  Thesaurarie  quam  eciam  coUacio  et  pre- 
sentacio  aliorum  beneficionmi  vacancium,  vacante  sede  Archiepiscopatus, 
quorum  collacio  seu  presentacio  spectaret  ad  Archiepiscopmn  sede  plena, 
de  iure  spectabat  racione  videhcet  temporaUtatis  Archiepiscopatus  etc.  in 
manu  sua  existentis,  contulit  eandem  Thesaurariam  eidem  Waltero  etc.,^' 
et  sic  nee  dominus  Rex  in  coUacione  ilia  nee  ipse  Walterus  in  admissione  etc. 
cuiquam  fecerunt  iniuriam.  Requisitus  idem  Waltei"us  si  quid  habeat  per 
quod  possit  docere  de  vacacione  predicte  Thesaurarie  tempore  predicte 
vacacionis  Archiepiscopatus  etc.,  dicit  quod  tempore  eiusdem  vacacionis 
Archiepiscopatus  dominus  Bonifacius,  tunc  smnmus  Pontifex,  lohannem  de 
sancto  vico  tunc  temporis  Thesaurarium  Ebor'  sentenciahter  priuauit,  tam 
ab  eadem  Thesauraria  quam  a  beneficiis  suis  ahis  etc.,  per  quam  quidem 
priuacionem  ipsa  Thesauraria  vacauit,  temporaUtate  Archiepiscopatus  etc. 
existente  in  manu  Regis.  Et  super  priuacione  ilia  ostendit  quoddam  publi- 
cum instrumentum  earn  testificans  in  hec  verba: 

18  Escheatornorthof  the  Trent,  1295-97  ship  was  what  was  known  as  a  collation 

(Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  140,  &c.),  escheator  south  "  in  the  right  of  another." 

of  the  Trent  in  1298  (Cat.  CI.  Rolls),  and  *»  Archbishop   Newerk   was  elected   7 

guardian  of  the  archbishopric  of  York  in  May,    1296,   received  the  royal  assent  5 

1296    during    voidance    (ibid.    4).      The  June,  and  recovered  the  temporalities  22 

account  here  referred  to  is  found  in  the  June,  1297.     Ibid,  ii,  104. 

Escheator's  Roll  29  Ed.  I  and  in  the  cor-  "  Walter  was  nominated  by  the  king  on 

responding  Chancellor's  Roll.  1   Nov.   1306   (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  467),  and 

'•  John  le  Romein,  or  Remain,  arch-  was  inducted  6  Jan.  1307.  Letters  man- 
bishop  of  York,  1286-96  (Le  Neve,  iii,  datory  were  issued  10  March,  1307  (ibid. 
104).    The  king's  disposal  of  the  treasurer-  511),  and  by  a  precept  of  20  March  the 


BISHOP   OF   SABINA    V.   BEDEWYNDE  21 

admitted  and  restored  to  the  aforesaid  trcasurership,  to  hold  according;  to 
the  tenor  of  the  collation  of  the  aforesaid  supreme  pontiff.  He  was  told  to 
wait  from  day  to  day  until  etc.  And  it  was  agreed  by  the  aforesaid  king's 
council  that  before  anything  further  in  the  matter  etc.,  the  rolls  and  other 
memoranda  should  be  searched  in  reference  to  the  king's  right  and  the 
estate  of  the  aforesaid  Walter  in  this  part.  And  the  said  Walter,  who  was 
present  etc.,  was  told  that  he  on  his  part  should  make  inquiries  and  have 
search  made  of  whatever  maj'  relate  to  the  right  of  the  king  and  his  own 
estate  etc.,  showing  and  presenting  the  evidences  which  (relate)  thereto 
etc.  The  memoranda  concerning  the  king's  right  etc.  having  been  searched, 
it  was  discovered  at  the  exchequer  in  the  29th  roll  of  the  present  king  in 
the  roll  of  accounts,  to  wit  in  the  third  roll  of  the  account  of  John  Lith- 
greins  '*  for  the  king's  escheats  beyond  the  Trent  and  for  the  revenues  of 
the  archbishopric  of  York,  during  vacancy  of  the  see,  that  the  aforesaid 
archbishopric  was  voided  by  the  death  of  J.  le  Romeyn"  late  archbishop 
there,  (that  is)  from  the  12th  day  of  March  in  the  24th  year,  when  the  said 
archbishop  died,  and  it  was  in  the  king's  hand  from  the  said  day  bj'  reason 
of  the  said  vacancj',  and  that  the  said  escheator  answered  to  the  king  for 
its  revenues  from  the  same  12th  day  of  March  until  the  22nd  day  of  June  in 
the  25th  year,  until  the  king  restored  the  temporalities  of  the  aforesaid  arch- 
bishopric to  Master  Henry  of  Newerk-"  archbishop-elect  etc.  Hereupon 
Walter  of  Bedewynde  in  behalf  of  the  lord  the  king  and  himself  declares 
that  whereas  the  aforesaid  treasurership  of  York  was  vacant  during  the 
vacancy  of  the  aforesaid  archbishopric  while  it  was  in  the  hand  of  the  said 
king,  to  whom  the  collation  of  the  said  treasurership  as  well  as  the  collation 
and  presentation  of  other  vacant  benefices  during  the  vacancy  of  the  arch- 
episcopal  see  rightfully  belonged,  by  reason  indeed  of  the  temporalities  of 
the  archbishopric  etc.  being  in  the  king's  hand,  whereof  the  collation  and 
presentation  belonged  to  the  archbishop  when  the  see  was  filled,  (where- 
fore) the  lord  the  king  himself  has  bestowed  the  said  treasurership  upon  the 
said  Walter  etc.,^'  so  that  neither  the  lord  the  king  in  making  this  collation 
nor  the  said  Walter  in  receiving  it  etc.  has  done  injury  to  anyone.  Having 
been  asked  if  he  has  anything  to  show  concerning  the  vacancy  of  the  afore- 
said treasurership  during  the  aforesaid  vacancy  of  the  archbishopric  etc., 
the  same  Walter  says  that  in  the  time  of  the  aforesaid  vacancy  of  the  arch- 
bishopric Lord  Boniface,  then  supreme  pontiff,  judicially  deprived  Jolm  de 
Sancto  Vito,  at  the  time  treasurer  of  York,  of  the  said  treasui-ership  as  well 
as  of  his  other  benefices  etc.,  so  that  by  this  deprivation  the  said  treasurer- 
ship  was  vacant,  while  the  temporahties  of  the  archbishopric  etc.  were  in 
the  king's  hand.  As  to  that  deprivation  he  displays  a  certain  public  in- 
strument testifying  to  it  in  the  following  words: 

sheriffs  were  ordered  not  to  permit  Walter  appeals  against  him  (ibid.  507).  It  will 
to  be  molested  in  his  possession  and  to  be  noticed  that  Bedewj'nde  was  nominated 
arrest    all    persons    making    citations    or      to  the  vacancy  created  between  12  March 


22  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 


Publicum 
Inatru- 


Universis  presens  publicum  Instrumentum  inspecturis,  [Nicholaus 
mentum  Hucsc]  ~  Officialis  Parisieusis  salutem  in  Domiuo.    Litteras  domini  .  .  . 

Pape  non  abolitas,  non  cancellatas,  non  abrasas  nee  in  aliqua  sua  parte 
\'ieiatas,  sub  veris  Bulla  et  fills  sericis  pendentibus,^  prout  prima  facie 
apparebat,  noueritis  nos  vidisse  formam  que  sequitur  continentes. 
Bonifacius  Episcopus,  senius  seruorum  Dei,  ad  perpetuam  rei  memo- 
riam.  In  excelso  throno,  [Here  follows  at  length  the  bull  of  10  May,  1297,-^ 
excommunicating  the  Colonna,  declaring  forfeitures  and  depriving  them  of 
all  benefices.]  Transcriptum  autem  huiusmodi  litterarum  Apostolica- 
rum  ad  peticionam  venerabilis  viri  domini  Roberti  de  sancto  Iusto,^°  in 
regno  Francie  generalis  procuratoris  Milicie  Templi,  ac  Laurencii  de 
Eboraco  in  regno  Anglie  Templi  clerici  fieri  fecimus  cuiuslibet  iure  salvo. 
In  quorum  testimonium  sigillmu  Curie  Parisiensis  una  cum  signis  con- 
suetis  infra  scriptorum  notariorum  presentibus  est  appensum.  Datum 
Parisiis  anno  Domini  IM.CC.XC.IX,  Indictione  tercia  decima,  die 
Martis  ante  festum  sancti  Vincencii  Martiris,  videlicet  nona  decima  die 
Mensis  lanuarii  Pontificatus  domini  Bonifacii  Pape  Octaui  anno 
quinto.-^  Presentibus  fratre  Petro  de  CormeUis,  ordinis  fratrum  predica- 
torum,  Nicholao  dicto  Huese,  Clerico  Curie  Parisiensis  notario  iurato,^' 
et  pluribus  aliis  testibus  ad  premissa. 

Et  ego  lohannes  de  Beroto,  clericus  Ebroycensis  diocesis,  ad  honorem 
sacrosancte  matris  ecclesie  Romane,  sacri  eciam  imperii  urbis  alme  pre- 
fecti  publicus  auctorite  notarius,  huiusmodi  litteras  Apostolicas,  quas 
vidi  non  abolitas,  non  cancellatas,  non  abrasas,  nee  in  aliqua  sua  parte 
viciatas,  sub  vei'is  bulla  et  filis  sericis  pendentibus,  prout  prima  facie 
apparebat,  diligenter  ac  fideUter  exemplaui  et  transcripsi,  niehil  addens 
vel  subtrahens  in  diceione  vel  sillaba,  quod  mutet  sensmn  aut  viciet 
intellectum,  presensque  exemplum  vel  transcriptmn  per  me  et  Auber- 
tum,  infrascriptum  notarium,  cmn  ipsis  Utteris  ascultatum,  in  omnibus 
cum  ipsis  coneordare  repertum,  propria  manu  scripsi,  et  in  banc  pub- 
licam  formam  redegi,  meumque  signum^  una  cum  sigillo  dicte  Curie  et 
signo  dieti  A.,  infraseripti  notarii,  presentibus  apposui,  rogatus  sub 
anno,  Indictione,  mense,  die,  Pontifieatu  et  loco  predictis.^ 

Ego,  Aubertus  de  Matonuilla,  clericus  Rothomagensis  diocesis, 
Apostolica  publicus  auctoritate  notarius,  huiusmodi  htteras  Apostolicas 
vidi,  tenui  et  legi  non  cancellatas,  non  abolitas,  non  abrasas,  nee  in 

1296  and  22  June,  1297,  not  to  any  vacancy  the  former  the  seal  was  attached  by  a  silk 

created   in    1304,   as  has  been  supposed  cord,  to  the  latter  by  a  string  of  hemp. 

(Northern  Convocations,  Surtees  Soc.  1907,  R.  L.  Poole,  Papal  Chancery  (1915),  115. 

p.  60).  "  The  bull  may  be  found  in  abstract  in 

"  The  space  for  the  name  is  left  vacant,  Potthast,  Regesla,  no.  24513,  and  in  full 

but  the  name  of  Huese  is  given  at  the  end  in  Dupuy,  Hist,  du  diffhcnd,  p.  29,  and 

of  the  instrument.  in  Muratori,  Anliq.  Ital.  vi,  189. 

"  There  were   two   classes   of   letters,  "  A  Templar  of  this  name  was  one  of 

letters  of  grace  and  letters  of  justice.    To  the  knights  interrogated  in  the  trials  of 


BISHOP    OF   SABINA   V.   BEDEWYNDE  22 

PubUo  To   all  who  shall  inspect   the  present  public  instrument  [Nicholas 

iDBtrument  Hucse]  -  official  of  (the  court  of)  Paris,  greeting  in  the  Lord.    Know  that 

we  have  seen  the  letters  of  the  lord  the  pope,  which  have  not  been  re- 
voked, cancelled,  abrased  nor  in  any  part  impaired,  with  genuine  seal 
and  threads  of  silk  appended,^  conUiining  the  following  words:  "Boni- 
face bishop,  servant  of  the  servants  of  God"  etc.  [The  Bull  'In  excelso 
throno,'  of  10  May  1297,^*  excommunicating  the  Colonna,  Peter,  James, 
John  and  Odo,  declaring  forfeiture  of  all  their  land  and  possessions  subject 
to  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  depriving  them  of  all  ecclesiastical  benefices,  is 
here  recited  at  letigth.]  Moreover  the  transcript  of  these  apostolic  letters 
we  have  had  made  on  petition  of  the  venerable  Lord  Robert  de  St.  Just,^' 
procurator  general  of  the  Templars  in  the  realm  of  France,  and  Law- 
rence of  York  clerk  of  the  Temple  in  the  realm  of  England,  saving  to 
each  one  his  right.  In  testimony  of  this  the  seal  of  the  court  of  Paris 
together  with  the  customary  signs  of  notaries  is  appended.  Given  at 
Paris  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  1299,  of  the  thirteenth  Indiction,  on 
Tuesday  before  the  feast  of  St.  Vincent  the  Martyr,  that  is  the  19th  day 
of  January  in  the  fifth  year  of  the  pontificate  of  Pope  Boniface  VIII  ;"* 
in  the  presence  of  friar  Peter  de  Corneliis  of  the  order  of  Preachers, 
Nicholas  called  Huese,  clerk  of  the  court  of  Paris,  sworn  notary,-^  and 
many  others  as  witnesses  to  the  premises. 

And  I,  John  de  Beiroto,  clerk  of  the  diocese  of  Evreux,  to  the 
honour  of  the  holj'  mother  the  Roman  Church,  and  authorized  public 
notary  of  the  aforesaid  holy  empire  of  the  world,  have  diligently  and 
faithfully  exemplified  and  transcribed  these  apostolic  letters,  which  I 
have  seen  were  not  revoked,  cancelled,  abrased,  nor  in  any  other  part 
impaired,  with  genuine  seals  and  threads  of  silk  appended,  as  is  on  the 
face  apparent,  adding  or  subtracting  nothing  in  word  or  syllable  that 
might  change  the  sense  or  impair  the  meaning,  and  with  my  own  hand 
have  written  the  present  exemplification  or  transcript,  which  has  been 
compared  with  the  said  letters  by  me  and  Aubert  the  notary  herein 
mentioned,  and  has  been  found  to  agree  with  them  in  all  points  and  I 
have  drawn  it  up  in  this  public  form,  placing  upon  it  as  a  testimonial 
my  sign,^  together  with  the  seal  of  the  said  court  and  the  sign  of  the  said 
A.  under  the  aforesaid  year,  Indiction,  month,  day,  pontificate,  and 
place.-' 

I,  Aubert  de  Matonville,  clerk  of  the  diocese  of  Rouen,  authorized 
public  notary,  have  seen,  read  and  comprehended  these  apostolic 
letters,  which  have  neither  been  cancelled,  annulled,  abrased,  nor  in 

1308.     Konrad  Schottmullcr,  Der  Unter-  "  The  sign  of  a  notary  was  a  design 

gang  des  Templet  (1887),  iii,  64,  79,  81.  more  or   less  complicated,   more  or  less 

"  19  Jan.  1299.  artistic,   which  was  his  distinctive  mark 

"  On  papal   notaries  see   Paul   P'our-  and  personal  property.     Ibid.  45. 
nier,  Les  OficialUis  au  Moyen  Age  (1880),  ''  The  formula  of  a  papal  notary  sub- 

ch.  vi.  stantially  as  given  in  Fournier,  p.  44. 


23  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

aliqua  sua  parte  corruptas,  vera  bulla  plumbea  pendente  sub  fills  de 
serico  roboratas,  ut  prima  facie  apparebat,  presensque  transcriptum  seu 
exemplum  super  eo,  cum  dictis  litteris  diligentem  faciens  collacionem 
cum  lohanne,  suprascripto  notario,  fideliter  ascultaui  et  legi,  et  quia 
utramque  in  omnibus   concordare  inueni  presentibus  me  subscripsi 
signumque  meum  ^  una  cum  sigillo  dicte  Curie  Parisiensis  ac  signo 
suprascripti  lohannis  notarii  apposui  consuetum  rogatus  sub  anno, 
Indictione,  mense,  die,  Pontificatu  et  loco  predictis."' 
Et  predictus  Walterus  dicit  quod  predictus  sextus  Idus  Maii  Pontificatus 
dicti  Pape  Bonifacii  anno  tercio  fuit  decimus  dies  eiusdem  mensis  Maii  anno 
gracie  M.CC.XC.VII  et  regni  Regis  nunc  xxv'°,  temporalitate  predict! 
Archiepiscopatus  tunc  existente  in  manu  ipsius  domini  Regis,  adiciens  quod- 
qualitercumque  predicta  Thesauraria  racionevacacionis  eiusdem  per  priuaci- 
onem  predictam  collata  fuisset  per  summum  Pontificem  prefato  Theobaldo 
de  Barro,  vel  alteri  cuicumque,  hoc  domino  Regi  vel  statui  quem  ipse  Wal- 
terus modo  habet  in  eadem  Thesauraria  preiudicari  non  debet,  presertim  cum 
collacio  inde  tunc  temporis  de  iure  corone  etc.  spectaret  ad  ipsum  Regem, 
et  ipse  Rex  in  hoc  precipue  prerogetur,  quod  in  huiusmodi  que  spectant  ad 
ius  suima  corone  etc.  nullum  labitur""  ei  tempus  nee  labi  debet  etc.,  quomi- 
nus  iura  etc.,  et  si  ad  tempus  sopita  fuerint  vel  neglecta,  eo  non  consulto 
inde  vel  ea  nullatenus  aduertente,  possit  ipsa  recuperare  et  eis  uti  cum  sibi 
placuerit  etc.,  ipseque  Walterus  ipsam  Thesaurariam  habent  ex  collacione 
ipsius  Regis  pro  tempore  quo  de  iure  etc.  spectabat  collacio  ad  ipsum  Regem 
sicut  superius  est  expressum.    Preterea  quo  ad  hoc  quod  in  suprascripta 
peticione  continetur  quod  predictus  Theobaldus  de  Barro  predictam  The- 
saurariam per  priuacionem  predicti  lohannis  de  sancto  vico  etc.  possedit  ex 
collacione  prefati  summi  Pontificis  pacifice  etc.,  dicit  quod  licet  idem  sum- 
mus  Pontifex  super  induccione  eiusdem  Theobaldi  in  eandem  Thesaura- 
riam certas  deputasset  personas  executores  etc.,  ipsique  executores  per 
littorias  coniminatorias  mandassent  ipsum  Theobaldum  induci  in  corpora- 
lem  possessionem  predicte  Thesaurarie  possidende  cum  omnibus  iuribus  et 
pertinonciis  suis  etc.,  Decanus  et  Capitulum  predicte  ecclesie  Ebor',  ad 
quos  e.\ecucio  mandatorum  huiusmodi  pertinebat,  hcet  mandatis  Aposto- 
licis  contraire  vel  eisdem  resistere  non  auderent,  aduertentes  tamen  col- 
lacionem predictam  et  induccionem  illam  fore  in  preiudicium  domini  Regis, 
cum  collacio  ilia  etc.  spectaret  ad  ipsum  dominum  Regem  racione  vaca- 
cionis  etc.,  tunc  publice  protestabantur  ipsos  in  eo  quod  ad  ipsos  pertinuit 
non  velle  preiudicari  domino  Rcgi  in  admissione  ipsius  Theobaldi,  per  quod 
liquet  ipsum  Theobaldum  nullum  statum  iuris  habuisse  in  eadem  Thesau- 
raria etc.,  super  qua  quidem  protestacione  dictorum  Decani  et  Capituli 

"  On  the  law  of  lapse  and  exception  of  plenarty  see  Introd.  p.  Ixv. 


BISHOP    OF   SABINA    ('.    BEDEWYNDE  23 

any  part  damaged,  but  are  confirmed  by  a  genuine  lead  seal  hanging  by 
threads  of  silk  as  was  evident  upon  the  face;  and  having  with  the  aid  of 
John,  the  aforesaid  notary  carefully  collated  this  transcript  or  exem- 
plification with  the  said  letters,  I  have  faithfully  read  and  compared 
them,  and  since  the  two  are  found  to  agree  in  all  points,  in  testimony  of 
this  I  have  given  my  signature  and  have  added  my  customary  sign  ** 
along  with  the  seal  of  the  said  court  of  Paris  and  the  sign  of  the  afore- 
said John,  notary,  under  the  aforesaid  year,  Indiction,  month,  day, 
pontificate,  and  place.^ 

And  the  aforesaid  Walter  says  that  the  sixth  of  the  Ides  of  May  in 
the  third  year  of  the  pontificate  of  the  said  Pope  Boniface  was  the  tenth 
day  of  the  same  month  of  May,  in  the  year  of  grace  1297,  and  of  the  present 
king's  reign  2oth,  when  the  temporalities  of  the  aforesaid  archbishop  were 
in  the  hand  of  the  said  lord  the  king,  and  he  adds  that  notwithstanding 
that  the  aforesaid  treasurership  by  reason  of  the  said  vacancy  (created) 
by  deprivation  had  been  bestowed  bj'  the  supreme  pontiff  upon  the  afore- 
said Theobald  de  Bar  or  another,  this  ought  not  to  prejudice  the  lord  the 
king  or  the  interest  which  the  said  Walter  now  has  in  the  said  treasurership, 
especially  because  this  collation  at  that  time  belonged  by  right  of  the 
crown  etc.  to  the  king  himself,  and  the  king  himself  in  this  matter  has  this 
especial  prerogative  that  in  matters  of  this  kind  pertaining  to  his  royal 
right  etc.  there  is  no  lapse*"  of  time  against  him,  nor  ought  there  to  be,  so 
that  the  rights  etc.,  and  if  for  a  time  they  shall  fall  in  abej'ance  or  be  neg- 
lected, without  his  being  consulted  or  in  anj'  wise  giving  attention,  he  can 
recover  them  and  use  them  whenever  he  pleases  etc.,  and  (since)  the  said 
Walter  holds  the  said  treasurership  by  collation  of  the  king  himself  for  the 
time  when  of  right  etc.  the  collation  belonged  to  the  king  himself  just  as 
has  been  already  explained.  Furthermore  as  to  the  point  contained  in  the 
aforesaid  petition  that  the  aforesaid  Theobald  de  Bar  by  collation  of  the 
aforesaid  supreme  pontiff  possessed  in  peace  the  aforesaid  treasurership  on 
the  deprivation  of  the  aforesaid  John  de  Sancto  Yito  etc.,  he  says  that 
although  the  said  supreme  pontiff  upon  the  induction  of  the  said  Theobald 
into  the  said  treasurership  had  deputed  certain  persons  as  executors  etc., 
and  the  said  executors  bj-  comminatory  letters  had  commanded  that  the 
said  Theobald  should  be  inducted  into  the  corporal  possession  of  the  afore- 
said treasurership  to  hold  with  all  its  rights  and  appurtenances  etc.,  (yet) 
the  dean  and  chapter  of  the  aforesaid  church  of  York  to  whom  the  execu- 
tion of  such  mandates  pertained,  although  they  did  not  dare  to  contravene 
or  resist  the  apostoUc  commands,  believing  nevertheless  that  the  aforesaid 
collation  and  induction  would  be  to  the  prejudice  of  the  lord  the  king,  since 
the  collation  etc.  belonged  to  the  lord  the  king  himself  by  reason  of  the 
vacancy  etc.,  then  publicly  protested  that  so  far  as  it  pertained  to  them  they 
were  unwilling  to  prejudice  the  lord  the  king  by  the  admission  of  the  said 
Theobald,  whereby  it  is  plain  that  the  said  Theobald  had  no  lawful  estate 


Instru- 
mentum 


24  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S    COUNCIL 

Ebor'  idem  Walterus  ostendit  quoddam  publicum  Instrumentum  eam 

testificans  in  hec  verba: 

In  nomine  Domini  amen,  annoeiusdem  abincarnacione  M.CC.XC.  VII, 
Indictione  undecima,  die  xviij.  mensis  Nouembris  venerabilis  pater 
dominus  H.,  Dei  gracia  Electus  Ebor',  et  reuerendi  viri  Magistri  Petrus 
de  Ros,"  Precentor  ecclesie  Ebor',  ac  Thomas  de  Corbrigg','-  canonicus 
eiusdem,  apud  Wilton  in  Camera  dicti  patris,  me  notario  et  testibus 
infrascriptis  tunc  presentibus,  presencialiter  constiti,  quandam  protes- 
tacionem  nomine  sue  ac  Decani  et  Capituli  ipsius  Ebor'  ecclesie  in 
scriptis  interposuerunt  sub  hac  forma.  In  Dei  nomine  amen.  Cum 
sanctissimus  in  Christo  pater  dominus  Bonifacius  Papa  Octauus 
lohannem  de  Calimipna,  Canonicum  et  Thesaurarium  ecclesie  Ebor', 
Thesauraria  eadein  ac  canonicatibus,  prebendis,  dignitatibus,  personati- 
bus  et  aliis  beneficiis  ecclesiasticis,  cum  cura  vel  sine  cura,  que  in  quibus 
ius  habebat  ecclesiis,  Apostolica  priuauerat  auctoritate,  ac  canonica- 
tum  prebendam  et  thesaurariam  eiusdem  Ebor'  ecclesie  sic  vacantes 
cum  plenitudine  iuris  canonici  ac  omnibus  iuribus  et  pertinenciis  suis 
'Theobaldo,  Germano  nobilis  viri  Comitis  Bariducis,  eadem  auctoritate 
contulerat  atque  prouiderat  de  illo  preposito  Lausanensi  et  Magistro 
Octobono  de  Placencia,  litterarum  contradictarum  auditore,'^  Canonico 
Suesion'  ecclesiarum,  ac  Officiali  Line'  executoribus  per  litteras  speciales 
super  hoc  datas  dictisque  preposito  et  Magistro  Octobono  suis  separatis 
processibus  Archiepiscopo  et  venerabilibus  ac  discretis  viris  Decano  et 
Capitulo  ac  singulis  canonicis  Ebor'  ubicuinque  constitutis  sub  magnis 
comminacionibus  et  penis  districcius  dantibus  in  mandatis  ut  ipsi  prout 
ad  eos  et  eorum  quemlibet  communiter  vel  diuisim  pertinet  infra  sex 
dies,  quoruna  duos  pro  primo,  duos  pro  secundo,  et  residuos  duos  uni- 
uersis  et  singulis  pro  tercio  et  peremptorio  termino  assignarunt,  recipiant 
cundem  dominum  Theobaldum,  vel  procuratorem  suum  eius  nomine  in 
suum  et  dicte  Ebor'  ecclesie  canonicum,  thesaurarium  atque  fratrem, 
eique  vel  procurator!  suo  eius  nomine,  stallum  in  choro  et  locum  in 
capitulo  sicut  canonico  et  thesaurario  assignent,  ac  in  corporalem  pos- 
sessionem canonicatus,  prebentle  et  thesaurarie  predictorum,  iurium  et 
pertinenciarum  earundem  inducant,  et  quantum  in  eis  est  defendant 
inductum,  faciendo  eidem  domino  T.,  vel  procuratori  suo  eius  nomine, 
de  ipsorum  canonicatus,  prebcndc  et  thesaurarie  fructibus,  redditibus, 
prouentibus  et  iuribus  uniuersis  prout  ad  eos  pertinet  integre  responderi. 
Nos,  Decanus  et  Capitulum  predictc  Ebor'  ecclesie  perpendentes  priua- 
cionem  de  qua  premittitur  eo  tempore  factum  fuisse  quo  serenissimus 
princeps  dominus  Edwardus,  Dei  gracia  Rex  Anglie  illustris,  Archi- 

"  or  Ross,  precentor  of  York  since  1289.  1283  and  archbishop  1300-04.     Le  Neve, 

Le  Neve,  iii,  154.  iii,  206,  212. 

"  Prclwndary  of  Stillinuton  in  1273,  of  "  AudiiiUiti  LilUrarum  Contradiclarum, 

Osbaldwick  in  1279,  chancellor  of  York  in  a   department  of  the  papal   chancery   in 


BISHOP   OF   SABINA    V.   BEDEWYNDE  24 

in  the  said  treasurcrsliip  etc.;  as  to  this  protestation  of  the  said  dean  and 
chapter  of  York  the  said  Walter  exliibits  a  certain  public  instrument  tes- 
tifying to  it  in  the  followiiif^  words: 
iDBtniment  jn  ^\^q  name  of  God  amen,  in  the  year  of  Our  Lord  1297,  on  the  18th 

day  of  November  in  the  eleventh  Indiction  the  venerable  father  Ix)rd  H., 
by  the  grace  of  CJotl  (archl)i.shop-)elect  of  York,  and  the  reverend  Peter 
of  Ros,^'  precentor  of  the  church  of  York,  and  Thomas  of  Corljridge,'* 
canon  of  the  same,  being  present  at  Wilton  in  the  chamber  of  the  said 
father,  in  the  presence  of  myself  as  notary  and  the  witnesses  herein 
mentioned,  interposed  in  the  name  of  themselves  an<l  the  dean  and 
chapter  of  the  said  church  of  York  a  written  protestation  in  the  follow- 
ing words:  In  the  name  of  God  amen.  Since  the  most  holy  father  in 
Christ  Pope  Boniface  VIII  by  apostolic  authority  had  deprived  John 
de  Colonna,  canon  and  treasurer  of  the  church  of  York,  of  the  said 
treasurership  and  canonries,  prebends,  dignities,  personatus  and  other 
ecclesiastical  benefices,  (whether)  with  the  cure  (of  souls)  or  without, 
which  he  held  as  his  right  in  these  churches,  and  by  the  same  authority 
had  bestowed  the  canoiny,  prebend  and  treasurership  of  the  said  church 
of  York  thus  vacant,  with  the  plenitude  of  canonical  right  and  their 
rights  and  appurtenances,  upon  Theobald  brother  of  the  count  of  Bar 
le  Due,  and  hud  provided  him  to  this  by  special  letters  concerning 
this  matter  directed  to  the  provost  of  Lausanne  and  to  Master  Ottobon 
of  Piacenza,  auditor  of  contradicted  letters,^^  canon  of  the  church  of 
Soissons,  and  to  the  official  of  Lincoln,  as  executors,  and  the  said  pro- 
vost and  Master  Ottobon  by  separate  processes  to  the  archbishop  and 
the  venerable  and  discreet  dean  and  chapter  and  all  the  canons  of  York 
wherever  they  might  be  under  great  threats  and  dire  penalties  gave 
commands  that  so  far  as  it  pertains  to  them  in  common  or  to  each  of 
them  individually,  within  six  daj's,  whereof  were  assigned  two  for  the 
first,  two  for  the  second  and  the  remaining  two  for  the  third  and  per- 
emptory term,  they  should  receive  the  said  Lord  Theobald  or  his  proctor 
in  his  name  as  their  canon,  treasurer  and  brother  in  the  said  church  of 
York,  and  should  assign  to  him  as  canon  and  treasurer,  or  to  his  procitor 
in  his  name,  a  stall  in  the  choir  and  place  in  the  chapter,  and  should 
place  him  in  material  possession  of  the  aforesaid  canonry,  prebend  and 
treasurership,  with  the  said  rights  and  appurtenances,  and  having 
inducted  him  they  should  so  far  as  lay  in  their  power  defend  him,  so  far 
as  they  can  causing  answer  to  be  made  entirely  to  the  said  Lord  T.,  or 
his  proctor  in  his  name,  for  all  fruits,  revenues,  incomes  and  rights  of 
the  aforesaid  canonry,  prebend  and  treasurership.  We,  the  dean  and 
chapter  of  the  aforesaid  church  of  York,  considering  that  the  depriva- 
tion described  above  was  made  at  the  time  when  the  most  serene  prince 

which  letters  were  examined  before  they      parties  interested.    Poole,  Papal  Chancery, 
were   registered    and    passed    on    to    the      p.  189. 


25  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

episcopatum  Ebor'  per  mortem  bone  memorie  I.  Archiepiscopi  vacantem 
in  manu  sua  habuit  et  tenebat,  protestamur  publice  in  his  scriptis  quod 
per  admissionem  dicti  Theobaldi  vel  procuratoris  sui  eius  nomine  ad 
canonicatum,  prebendam  et  thesaurariam  predictos,  occasione  senten- 
ciarium  in  dictorum  executorum  processibus  contentarum  per  nos 
faciendam  non  intendimus,  nee  eciam  volimius,  quantum  in  nobis  est, 
iuri  predicti  domini  Regis  in  collacione,  donacione  vel  presentacione  dic- 
tarum  Thesaurarie  et  Prebende  aliqualiter  competenti  in  aliquo  dero- 
gare,  quinimmo  quod  omne  ius  suum  quatenus  de  iure  vel  consuetudine 
saluari  possit  vel  debeat  in  hoc  casu  saluum  existat,  admissione  nostra 
huiusmodi  non  obstante.  Actum  anno  ab  incarnacione  IVI.CC.XC.VII, 
Indictione  undecima,  die  xviij"  mensis  Nouembris,  presentibus  Magis- 
tro  Hugone  de  Menigthorpe,  Rectore  ecclesie  de  Bulmere,  Ebor'  dio- 
cesis,  Willelmo,  Rectore  ecclesie  de  Botilsford,  Lincoln'  diocesis,  Henrico 
de  Baispole  et  lohanne  de  lakeslay,  clerieis,  testibus  vocatis  et  rogatis. 
Et  ego,  Adam  de  Louther,  Karliol'  diocesis,  sacri  imperii  publicus  auc- 
toritate  notarius,  ac  in  presenti  notarius  venerabilis  Capituli  beati  Petri 
Ebor'  interpositioni  protestacionis  predicte  unacum  testibus  supra- 
dictis  presens  interfui  et  eam  scripsi,  publicaui  meoque  signo  signaui 
Rogatus. 

Et  quo  ad  hoc  quod  simiUter  in  predicta  peticione  continetur  quod 
dominus  Rex  sciuit  dictum  Theobaldum  de  Barro  habuisse  possessionem 
dicte  Thesaurarie  et  quod  inde  fauit  ei  etc.  concedendo  ei  litteras  de  attor- 
natu  super  ilia,  et  quod  manutenuit  dictum  Franciscum  Gaytanum  in  pos- 
sessione  inde  etc.  concedendo  ei  consimiles  htteras  de  attornatu  etc.,  dicit 
idem  Walterus  quod  eedem  Uttere  non  derogant  iuri  Regis  quoad  collacio- 
nem  etc.,  cimi  titulum  aUquem  possessionis  non  tribuant  vel  confinnent 
possessionem  etc.,  nee  statui  ipsius  Walteri  etc.,  cum  ipse  nullum  statum 
clamet  inde  nisi  ex  collacione  Regis  pro  tempore  quo  collacio  de  iure  spec- 
tauit  ad  Regem,  sicut  superius  declaratur,  et  petit  consuH  pro  domino  Rege 
et  ipso  Waltero  in  hac  parte  et  inde  fieri  secundum  tenorem  mandati  ipsius 
Regis  inde  superius  annotati. 

Et  visis  euidenciis  predictis,  auditisque  racionibus  prefati  Walteri  in 
premissis  pro  iure  Regis  et  statu  suo  propositis  etc.,  habitis  inde  delibera- 
cione  et  tractatu  diligentibus,  quia  constat  dominum  Regem  de  iure  suo 
corone  etc.  conferre  debere  beneficia  vacancia  et  eciam  presentare  vacante 
Archiepiscopatu  etc.  quorum  quidem  beneficiorum  collacio  sive  presentacio 
spectarent  ad  Archiepiscopum  sede  plena  etc.,  et  quod  nullum  tempus 
labitur  domino  Regi  etc.  in  hiis  que  ad  ius  suum  corone  etc.,  nee  deductum 
est  vel  ostensum  ex  parte  dicti  Francisci  quin  dicta  thesauraria  vacauit 


BISHOP   OF   SABINA   V.   BEDEWYNDE  25 

Lord  Edward,  by  the  grace  of  God  illustrious  king  of  England,  had  and 
was  holding  in  his  hand  the  archbishopric  of  York  which  was  avoided 
by  the  death  of  J.  Archbishop  of  blessed  memory,  (we)  do  publicly  pro- 
test in  this  writing  that  by  the  admission  of  the  said  Theobald  or  his 
proctor  in  his  name  to  the  canonry,  prebend  and  treasurership,  which 
was  required  of  us  by  reason  of  the  sentences  contained  in  the  processes 
of  the  said  executors,  we  do  not  intend,  nor  do  we  even  wish,  so  far  as 
lies  in  us,  in  any  wise  to  derogate  from  the  right  which  is  anyhow  suffi- 
cient of  the  aforesaid  lord  king  in  regard  to  the  collation,  donation  or 
presentation  of  the  said  treasurership  and  prebend;  nay  more,  (we  say) 
that  all  his  right  in  this  case  remains  safe,  so  long  as  it  can  or  ought  to 
be  saved  by  right  and  custom,  notwithstanding  this  admission  of  ours. 
Done  in  the  year  of  Our  Lord  1297,  18  November,  in  the  eleventh 
Indiction,  in  the  presence  of  Hugh  Menigthorp,  rector  of  the  church  of 
Bulmer  in  the  diocese  of  York,  William,  rector  of  the  church  of  Bottels- 
ford  in  the  diocese  of  Lincoln,  Henrj'  Baispole  and  John  Jakesley, 
clerks,  who  were  called  and  required  as  witnesses.  And  I,  Adam  Low- 
ther  of  the  diocese  of  Carhsle,  by  authority  public  notary  of  the  sacred 
empire  and  at  present  notary  of  the  venerable  chapter  of  St.  Peter's 
York,  was  present  during  the  statement  of  the  aforesaid  protestation 
together  with  the  aforesaid  witnesses,  and  having  written  and  pubhshed 
it,  I  have  signed  it  with  my  sign,  by  request. 

And  as  to  the  point  that  is  similarly  contained  in  the  aforesaid  petition 
that  the  lord  the  king  knew  that  the  said  Theobald  de  Bar  had  possession  of 
the  said  treasurership  and  that  (the  king)  favoured  him  etc.  granting  letters 
of  attorney  in  regard  to  it,  and  that  he  maintained  the  said  Francis  Gaetano 
in  possession  of  it  etc.  granting  him  similar  letters  of  attorney  etc.,  the  said 
Walter  says  that  these  letters  do  not  derogate  from  the  king's  right  to  the 
collation  etc.  since  they  do  not  assign  any  title  of  possession  nor  con6rm 
possession  etc.,  nor  (do  they  derogate  from)  the  estate  of  the  said  Walter, 
since  he  claims  no  estate  in  regard  to  it  except  by  collation  of  the  king  at 
the  time  when  the  collation  rightfully  belonged  to  the  king,  as  has  been 
declared  before,  and  (so)  he  asks  that  there  be  counsel  in  behalf  of  the  king 
and  the  said  Walter  in  this  part  and  that  action  be  taken  according  to  the 
tenor  of  the  said  king's  mandate  with  regard  to  it  as  noted  above. 

The  foregoing  evidences  having  been  viewed  and  the  arguments  of  the 
aforesaid  Walter  setting  forth  the  king's  right  and  his  own  estate  etc.  hav- 
ing been  heard,  after  holding  diligent  deliberation  and  discussion  of  the 
matter,  since  it  is  evident  that  the  lord  the  king  by  the  right  of  his  crown 
etc.  should  bestow  vacant  benefices  and  also  during  the  vacancy  of  the 
archbishopric  should  present  the  benefices  the  collation  or  presentation  of 
which  belongs  to  the  archbishop  when  the  see  is  filled  etc.,  and  because 
there  is  no  lapse  of  time  for  the  lord  the  king  etc.  in  regard  to  these  things 
which  (pertain)  to  his  roj'al  right  etc.,  nor  has  it  been  deduced  or  shown  on 


26  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

tempore  dicte  vacacionis  Archiepiscopatus,  pro  quo  domlnus  Rex  earn  con- 
tulit  dicto  Waltero,  ipseque  Walterus  nullum  alium  statmn  inde  clamat 
nisi  ex  ipsa  eadem  collacione  etc.  videtur  consilio  Regis  ipsum  Walterum 
ius  habere  in  possessione  sua  inde  etc.  Et  super  hoc  concordatum  est  quod 
predictus  Franciscus  nichil  recuperet  per  peticionem  suam  predictam.  Et 
iniunctum  est  predicto  Waltero,  sub  onini  eo  quod  Regi  forisfacere  poterit, 
quod  cum  tota  diligencia  et  toto  posse  suo  manuteneat  et  defendat  ius 
domini  Regis  pro  collacione  predicta,  et  possessionem  suam  in  ipsa  The- 
sauraria,  et  eciam  prosequatur  versus  dominum  Regem  et  consihum  suum 
super  auxilio  inde  habendo  etc.  cum  viderit  oportunum.  Concordatum  est 
eciam  quod  fiant  ei  littere  Regis  de  Cancellaria  quecimique  fuerint  neces- 
sarie  etc.  ad  defensionem  possessionis  sue  etc.  Et  rescribitur  domino  Regi 
super  premissis  in  hec  verba: 

Sire,  en  dreit  de  ceo  qe  vous  nous  maundastes,  qe  oye  la  raoustraimce 
qe  lonurable  pere  en  dieu  Pierres  par  la  grace  de  dieu  Euesqe  de  Sabyne, 
Cardinal  de  la  seinte  eglise  de  Rome  voudreit  faire  deuaunt  nous  et  les 
autres  de  vostre  consaO,  pur  celui  qe  fu  Tresorier  en  leglise  Deueruwj'k, 
en  dreit  de  meismes  la  Tresorie,  nous  vous  fesoms  sauer  qe  oye  la  mous- 
traunce  qe  im  clerk  depar  le  dit  Cardinal  ad  faite  deuant  nous  et  voz 
Justices  et  les  autres  de  vostre  consail  a  Loundres,  et  bien  et  diligeau- 
ment  examinee  la  dite  busoigne,  Nous  trouuoms  qe  la  dite  Tresorie  fu 
vacaunte  en  le  temps  qe  lerceuesche  Deuerwyk  fu  vacaunte  par  la  mort 
Johan  le  Romayn,  aucun  temps  Erceuesqe  illoqes,  et  qe  la  temperaute 
de  meismes  lerceuesche  fu  en  vostre  majoi.  Et  pur  ceo,  sire,  qe  la  col- 
lacion  des  benefices  appendent  a  vous  en  tieux  vacaciouns,  et  qe  nul 
temps  ne  court  a  vous  en  tieu  cas,  semble  a  nous  et  a  voz  Justices  et  as 
autres  de  vostre  consail,  qe  la  collacion  de  la  dite  Tresorie  appendeit  a 
vous  de  dreit  de  vostre  Coroune,  et  qe  vous  la  poiez  et  deuez  doner  a 
vostre  volente.sicomevous  auetz  fait  sauntz  tort  faire  a  nuli,  et  qe  vostre 
doun,  sire,  est  resonable,  pur  le  dreit  de  vostre  Coroune.  Sire,  nostra 
Seignour  vous  donit  bone  vie  et  longe,  et  accresse  vos  honours.  Done  a 
Westminster  le  xxij.  jour  du  Moj^s  de  Juyn. 

Postea  dominus  Rex  Edwardus,  fihus  huius  Regis,  mandauit  hie  breue 
suum  de  priuato  sigillo  suo  quod  est  inter  communia  de  anno  secundo  in 
hec  verba: 

Edward  par  le  grace  de  Dieu  Roi  Dengleterre,  seignour  Dirlaunde  et 
Dues  Daquitaigne,  au  lieu  tenaunt  nostre  Tresorier  et  as  Barouns  de 
nostre  Eschekier  salutz.  Nous  vous  maundoms  qe  vous  faccz  sercher  es 
Roules  de  nostre  dit  Eschekier  tut  le  Record  et  le  proces  qe  feust  nad- 
gaires  deuaunt  le  Tresorier  et  les  Barons  del  Eschekier  et  les  autres  du 


BISHOP   OF   SABINA   V.   BEDEWYNDE  26 

the  part  of  the  said  Francis  that  the  SJiid  treasurership  was  not  vacant  dur- 
ing the  said  voidance  of  the  archbishopric,  wherefore  the  lord  the  king  be- 
stowed it  upon  the  said  Walter,  and  since  Walter  himself  claims  no  other 
estate  in  regard  to  it  than  that  of  the  said  collation  etc.,  (therefore)  it 
seems  to  the  king's  council  that  the  said  Walter  is  right  in  his  possession 
thereof  etc.  Hereupon  it  was  agreed  that  the  aforesaid  Francis  should 
recover  nothing  by  his  aforesaid  petition.  And  it  was  enjoined  upon  the 
aforesaid  Walter  under  forfeiture  of  all  that  he  can  forfeit  to  the  king,  that 
with  all  diligence  and  with  all  his  might  he  should  maintain  and  defend  the 
right  of  the  lord  the  king  to  the  aforesaid  collation  and  his  own  possession 
of  the  said  treasurership,  and  also  that  he  should  sue  to  the  lord  the  king 
and  his  council  for  aid  in  the  matter  etc.  whenever  it  should  seem  expedient. 
It  was  also  agreed  that  letters  should  be  issued  to  him  out  of  the  chancery, 
whatever  might  be  necessary  etc.  for  the  defense  of  his  possession  etc.  And 
report  is  to  be  made  to  the  lord  the  king  upon  the  premises  in  the  following 
words : 

Sire,  in  regard  to  what  you  have  commanded  us,  that  having  heard  the 
statement  made  before  us  and  the  others  of  your  council  by  the  honour- 
able father  in  God,  Peter,  by  the  grace  of  God  bishop  of  Sabina,  cardinal 
of  the  holj'  church  of  Rome,  in  behalf  of  the  late  treasurer  of  the  church 
of  York,  in  regard  to  the  right  to  the  said  treasurership,  we  inform  you 
that  having  heard  the  statement  made  by  a  clerk  in  behalf  of  the  said 
cardinal  before  us  and  your  justices  and  the  others  of  your  council  at 
London,  and  having  examined  the  said  matter  well  and  diligently,  we 
find  that  the  said  treasurership  was  vacant  during  the  voidance  of  the 
archbishopric  of  York  caused  by  the  death  of  John  le  Romein,  formerly 
archbishop  there,  and  that  the  temporalities  of  the  said  archbishopric 
were  (then)  in  your  hand.  And  because,  Sire,  the  collation  of  benefices 
during  such  vacancies  belongs  to  you,  and  because  no  lapse  of  time 
affects  you  in  such  case,  it  seems  to  us  and  to  your  justices  and  others  of 
your  council  that  the  collation  of  the  said  treasurership  belonged  to  you 
by  right  of  your  crown,  and  that  you  can  and  should  give  it  at  your 
pleasure,  just  as  you  have  done  without  wronging  anyone,  and  that 
your  gift.  Sire,  is  reasonable  according  to  the  right  of  your  crown.  May 
the  Lord,  Sire,  grant  j'ou  good  long  life,  and  increase  your  honours. 
Given  at  Westminster  the  22nd  day  of  June. 

Afterwards  the  Lord  King  Edward,  son  of  the  said  king,  sent  here  his 
writ  under  the  privy  seal  which  is  among  the  common  matters  of  the  second 
year  and  runs  as  follows: 

Edward,  by  the  grace  of  God  king  of  England,  lord  of  Ireland  and  duke 
of  Aquitaine,  to  the  deputy  of  our  treasurer  and  the  barons  of  our 
exchequer  greeting.  We  command  you  to  make  search  in  the  rolls  of 
our  said  exchequer  for  all  the  record  and  process  that  was  recently 
before  the  treasurer  and  barons  of  the  exchequer  and  the  others  of  the 


27  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

consail  nostre  chier  pere,  qui  Dieu  assoille,  touchaunt  la  Tresorie  de 
laglise  seint  pere  Deurwyk,  la  quele  Tresorie  nostre  dit  pere  dona  a 
nostre  cher  clerc  Wautier  de  Bedewynde,  et  meismes  le  Record  et  pro- 
ces  od  tut  qant  qe  y  appent  facez  auoir  au  dit  Wautier  suz  le  seal 
nostre  Eschekier  auauntdit.    Done  suz  nostre  priue  seal  a  Leghton 
Busard  le  xviij.  jour  de  Juyn  Ian  de  nostre  regne  secound. 
Pretextu  cuius  breuis  iste  processus  coram  lohanne  de  Sandale/^  tene- 
nentum  locum  Thfesaurarii],  Thoma  de  Cantebr','^  I.  de  Foxle,  Magistro 
Ricardo  de  Abyndon  et  Magistro  I.  de  Euerdon,  Baronibus  de  Scaccario,'^ 
recitatus  in  scaccario  predicto  die  Mercurii  in  crastino  Natiuitatis  sancti 
lohannis  Baptiste  "  anno  regni  Regis  Edwardi,  filii  huius  Regis,  secundo. 
Concordarunt  ipsi  tenens  locmn  Thesaurarii  et  Barones  quod  idem  proces- 
sus transcribatur  et  sigillo  dicti  scaccarii  consignetur,  et  tradatur  prefato 
Waltero  in  testimonium  premissorum  penes  se  habendus.     Et  prefatus 
processus  transcribitur,  consignatur  et  predicto  Waltero  liberatur  etc. 

REX  V.  GERDESTON' 

1315        Placita  coram  Domino  Rege  in  Parliamento  suo  ^  apud  Westmonas- 
terium  in  presencia  ipsius  Domini  Regis  die  et  Anno  infrascriptis. 

Norfl.  ^Magister  Thomas  de  Gerdeston^  Archidiaconus  Norffolcie  et  Magis- 

ter  Ricardus  de  Ryngestede  ^  Officialis  *  eiusdem  Archidiaconi  coram  ipso 
Domino  Rege  et  consilio  suo  in  Parliamento  suo  apud  Westmonasterium 
die  Mercurii  in  VigiLia  Ascensionis  domini  Anno  domini  Regis  nunc  oc- 
tauo''  aculpati  et  ad  racionem  positi  de  eo  quod  cum  non  liceat  alicui  Cita- 
ciones  aut  *  summoniciones  cuicunque  facere  infra  Palacium  ipsius  Domini 

'*  A  king's  clerk,  chancellor  of  the  is  believed,  according  to  the  preface,  to 
exchequer  1307-08,  deputy  treasurer  1308-  have  been  "  made  by  Mr.  Arthur  Agard 
10  {Cal.  Pat.  1  Ed.  II,  6);  in  1310-11  he  and  other  keepers  of  such  Records  during 
was  treasurer  of  the  exchequer  (ibid.  234),  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth  "  (ib.  p.  ix). 
again  in  1312  he  is  supplying  the  place  of  In  his  Third  Insiilute,  under  the  head- 
treasurer,  and  in  1313  once  more  treasurer  ing  "  Misprision,"  Sir  Edward  Coke  cites 
{Cal.  Pal.  passim).  the  case,  and  gives  an  abridgement  of  the 

"  A  baron  of  the  exchequer  1307-10.  judgment    (ed.    1797,    f.    [141]);    but    his 

Cal.  Pal.  Rolls,  7,  265.  rendering   of   the   name  as   "  Nyerford," 

"  List    of    barons    of   the    exchequer.  printed  in  the  Plac.  Abb.  as  "  Neirford," 

Madox,  ii,  325,  326.  and     the    matter    of    his     abridgement, 

"  25  June,  1309.  which  substantially  varies    from   that  of 

'  This  record  which  was  first  found  in  Agard,    shew    that    he    followed   another 

Hale's  Collection  has  been  collated  with  transcriber,   incorrect  as  was  Agard.     A 

the  original  in  Coram  Rege  Roll,  Easter,  third  transcript,  complete  as  to  contents 

8  Ed.  II,  no.  220,  m.  cxi.  but  more  inaccurate  than  that  of  Agard, 

•  Easter   Term    8    Ed.    II    began    on  exists  among  a  number  of  cases  before  the 

Wednesday,  9  April,  and  ended  on  Monday,  king  and   council,    most  of   which   have 

5  May,  1315.  since  been  printed,  in  the  Hale  Collection 

'  An  abridgement  of  the  first  part  of  of  MSS.  in  Lincoln's  Inn  Library,  vol.  42. 

this  case  is  printed  in  Placitorum  Abbrevia-  The  case  is  not  printed  in  the  Rotuli  Par- 

(t'o  (Record  Commission,  1811),  p.  321.    It  liamentorum.      "The    original    is    on    one 


REX   V.   GERDESTON  27 

council  of  our  dear  father,  on  whom  may  God  have  mercy,  in  regard  to 
the  treasurcrship  of  the  church  of  St.  Peter's  in  York,  which  treasurer- 
ship  our  said  father  gave  to  our  dear  clerk  Walter  of  Bedewynde,  and 
the  said  record  and  process  with  all  that  belongs  to  it  do  you  give  over 
to  the  said  Walter  under  the  seal  of  our  aforesaid  exchequer.  Given 
under  our  privy  seal  at  Leighton  Busard  on  the  18th  day  of  June  in 
the  second  j-ear  of  our  reign. 

In  consequence  of  this  writ  the  said  process  was  read  before  John  of 
Sandale,^^  deputy-treasurer,  Thomas  Cantebrigg,'^  John  Foxle,  Master 
Richard  Abingdon  and  Master  J.  Everdon,  barons  of  the  exchequer,''  in  the 
exchequer  on  the  aforesaid  Wednesday  the  day  after  the  Nativity  of  John 
the  Baptist,''  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward,  son  of  the  late 
king.  The  said  deputj'  treasurer  and  barons  agreed  that  the  said  process 
should  be  transcribed,  and  seajed  with  the  seal  of  the  said  exchequer,  and 
given  to  the  aforesaid  Walter  to  keep  for  himself  as  a  testimonial  of  the 
premises.  So  the  aforesaid  process  is  transcribed,  sealed,  and  delivered  to 
the  aforesaid  Walter  etc. 

REX  V.  GERDESTON' 

1315        Pleas  before  the  Lord  the  king  in  his  Parliament  -  at  Westminster  in 
presence  of  the  Lord  the  king  in  person  on  the  day  and  year  within  written. 

'  Master  Thomas  of  Gerdeston,^  archdeacon  of  Norfolk  and  IMaster 
Richard  of  Ryngestede  ^  Official  *  of  the  same  archdeacon  were  charged  and 
put  to  answer  before  the  king  in  person  in  his  council  in  his  parliament  at 
Westminster  on  Wednesday  in  the  vigil  of  the  Ascension  of  the  Lord  in  the 
eighth  year  of  the  lord  the  king  that  now  is '  for  that,  although  it  is  not 
lawful  to  any  one  to  make  citations  or  summons  to  any  person  within  the 
palace  of  him  the  lord  the  king  at  Westminster,  both  by  reason  of  the  king's 

membrane   almost    at    the    end    of    the  two  parishes  of  Great  and  Little  Ring- 

Coram  Rege  cases  on  the  Roll.    No  other  stead  are  in  the  Hundred  of  Smithdon  in 

case  before  the  council  on  this  roll  has  N.  W.  Norfolk, 
been  found.  *  "  Official;  in  the  Church  of  England 

*  This  name  appears  in  Le  Neve  as  the  presiding  officer  or  judge  of  an  arch- 
Thomas  Kerdeston,  arch-deacon  of  Nor-  bishop's,  bishop's,  or  archdeacon's  court." 
folk  in  1297,  1312  and  1315.     Fasli  Eccl.  Oxford  Engl.  Did. 

Angl.   ii,   482.     Kerdeston,  Kerdiston  or  '  Wednesday,  the  vigil  of  the  Ascen- 

Cardeston  is  a  parish  in  the  Hundred  of  sion,  8  Ed.  II,   fell   on   30  April,    1315. 

Eynsford  in  North  Norfolk  which  gave  its  Rymer's  Fccdera   shews  that   Edward  II 

name  to  the  lords  of  the  manor,  who  held  was  at  Westminster  both  on  20  April  and 

it  at  this  time.     The  same  family  were  4  May.     Syllabtis  of  Sir  T.  D.  Hardy,  i, 

then  also  landowners  at  Wramphngham,  185.     On  the  other  hand,  the  parliament 

East    Riston,    Claxton,    Helgheton    and  which  had  met  on  20  January,  1315,  did  not 

Crostwick,  all  in  the  county.     F.  Blome-  sit  after  9  March,  so  that  the  phrase  "  in 

field,  Hist,  of  Norfolk,  viii,  241,  243;   i.\.  Parliament    suo"    had    become    common 

338;  X,  112,  135;  xi,  8.     The  name  is  er-  form.    See  C.  H.  Parry,  Parliaments  and 

roneously  transcribed  Gerdestan  in  Plac.  Councils  of  England  (1839),  p.  78. 
Abb.  '  The    Placitorum    Abbreinatio    incor- 

*  Also  a  Norfolk  manorial  name.    The  rectly  reads  "  cilatores  ante." 


28  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

Regis  Westmonasterii  tarn  racione  Regie  dignitatis  at  Corone  sue  quam 
racione  exempcionis  eiusdem  loci  qui  quidem  locus  ab  omni  Jurisdiccione 
ordinaria  exemptus  est  et  immunis  per  libertates  Ecclesie  Westmonaste- 
riensis  per  summos  pontifices  eidem  Ecclesie  concessas '  predicti  Archidia- 
conus  et  OfEcialis  octauo  die  Marcii  vltimo  preterito'"  ipso  domino  Rege  in 
Palaeio  sue  predicto  existente"  et  Parliamentum  suum  ibidem  tenente 
citarunt'-  et  per  quemdam  Robertum  de  Capella  de  Jakesle'^  Citari  fece- 
runt  Johannam  de  Barro"  Comitissam  Warrenne  neptem  ipsius  Domini 
Regis  tunc  ibidem  in  Comitiua  Domine  Regine  consortis  '^  Domini  Regis 
existentem  videlicet  in  capella  bassa'^  predicti  Domini  Regis  in  Palaeio 
predicto,  quod  ipsa  Comitissa  compareret  coram  Officiali  predicto  vel  eius 
Commissario  in  ecclesia  parochiaU  beati  Nicholai  de  Brackeden'^die  veneris 
proxima  post  festum  beati  Gregorii  Pape  proximo  sequente  post  diem  cita- 
cionis  predicte"  ad  respondendum  Matillicli  de  Neyrford''  in  causa  matri- 
monii et  divoreii  que  coram  dicto  Officiali  autoritate  ordinaria^"  procedente 
vertebatur  inter  prefatam  MatUlidem  actricem  ex  parte  vna  et  lohannera 
comitem  de  Warrenna  et  prefatam  Comitissam  ex  altera  que  quidem  citacio 
loco  et  tempore  predictis  vt  predictum  est  facta  per  ipsos  Archidia- 
conum  et  Officialem  racionibus  predictis  facta  fuit  in  dedecus  ipsius  domini 
Regis  manifestum  et  contemptum  ipsius-'  \dginti  mille  librarum  et  contra 
Coronam  et  dignitatem  suam  &c.  Et  predicti  Archidiaconus  et  Officialis 
dicunt  quod  veritatem  facti  sui  in  hac  parte  coram  ipso  domino  Rege  et 
consilio  suo  fatebuntur  et  cognoscent.     Et  idem  Archidiaconus  pro  se  dicit 

"  The  earliest  papal  bulls  upon  which  this  royall  priviledge  is  not  only  appro- 
were  founded  the  claims  of  the  Abbey  of  priated  to  the  palace  of  Westminster,  but 
Westminster  to  exemption  from  episcopal  to  all  the  king's  palaces,  where  his  royall 
jurisdiction  dated  from  John  XV  (986-  person  resides:  Secondly,  that  this  privi- 
999)  but  were  forgeries  of  a  later  period.  ledge  is  to  be  exempted  from  all  ecclesias- 
Nevertheless,  in  1222,  a  controversy  on  ticall  jiu-isdiction."  (3  Inst.  p.  [141].) 
this  subject  which  had  arisen  with  Eustace,  '-  At  this  point  the  Plac.  Ahb.  breaks 
bishop  of  London,  was  decided  in  favour  ofT  till  "  Johannam." 
of  the  Abbey  by  Cardinal  Stephen  Lang-  '^  The  Rectory  of  Yaxley  in  Suffolk  was 
ton.  It  is  curious  that  the  draughtsman  appropriate  to  the  Priory  of  Eye  (Dug- 
did  not  mention  the  charter  of  Edward  the  dale,  MonaM.  (ed.  1846],  iii,  409).  I  have 
Confessor  of  1045,  which  "  specially  not  found  any  distinct  mention  of  a 
guards  against  episcopal  intrusion,"  for  chapel,  but  there  was  a  "  Gild  of  St. 
though  it  also  is  apocrj^phal,  it  is  probably  Thomsis  the  Martyr  "  here,  which  not 
as  ancient  as  the  twelfth  century.  See  improbably  had  a  chapel  either  within  or 
preface  to  John  Flete's  Ilislory  of  West-  outside  the  parish  church.  10th  Rep. 
minster  Abbey,  edited  by  J.  A.  Robinson  Hist.  MSS.  Comm.  pt.  iv,  p.  464. 
(1909),  pp.  14-17.                                                    "  Joan  of  Bar,  only  daughter  of  Henry 

'°  The  day  before  the  dissolution:  see  III,  Count  of  Bar,  by  the  lady  Eleanor 

n.  7,  supra.  Plantagenet,  first  daughter  of  Edward  I. 

"  This  is  probably  accurate,  and  not  She  was,  therefore,  niece  of  Edward  II.  She 
common  form.  Rymer's  Foedera  shew  married  on  20  May,  1306,  John  de  War- 
that  Edward  II  was  at  Westminster  on  10  enne,  known  indifferently  as  Earl  Warenne, 
March,  1315.  Hardy's  liyllabus,  i,  185.  Earl  of  Surrey  and  Earl  of  Sussex,  he 
Coke,  after  setting  out  his  abridgement  of  being  then  aged  twenty  years.  As  Joan 
the  judgment,  adds:  "  Here  two  things  de  Bar  must  have  been  born  between 
are  principally  to  be  observed;   first,  that  1293,  the  year  of  her  mother's  marriage, 


REX   V.   GERDESTON  28 

dignity  and  of  that  of  his  crown  as  also  by  reason  of  the  exemption  of  the 
same  place,  which  place  indeed  is  exempt  and  inimune  from  all  jurisdiction 
of  the  ordinary  through  the  liberties  of  the  Church  of  Westminster  granted 
to  the  same  church "  by  the  chief  poutiffs,  the  aforesaid  archdeacon  and 
official  on  the  eighth  day  of  March  last  past,'"  the  king  in  person  being  in 
his  palace"  aforesaid,  and  there  holding  his  parliament,  cited  and  by  a 
certain  Robert  of  the  Chapel  of  Jakcsle"  caused  to  be  cited  Joan  of  Barr,'^ 
Countess  Warennc,  niece  of  him  the  lord  the  king,  she  then  being  there  in 
company  of  the  lady  the  queen  consort'*  of  the  lord  the  king  namely  in  the 
low  chapel ''  of  the  aforesaid  lord  the  king  in  the  palace  aforesaid,  ordering 
the  countess  to  appear  in  person  before  the  official  aforesaid  or  his  commis- 
sary in  the  parish  church  of  Saint  Nicholas  of  Brackeden'^  on  the  Friday 
next  after  the  feast  of  St.  Gregory,  Pope,  next  following  the  day  of  the 
citation  aforesaid  '^  to  respond  to  Maud  of  Neyrford  '"  in  a  cause  of  matri- 
mony and  divorce  which  was  being  sued  before  tiie  said  official  by  authority 
of  the  Ordinary's  process™  between  the  aforementioned  Maud  plaintiff  of 
the  one  part  and  John  Earl  Warenne  and  the  countess  aforementioned  of 
the  other  part,  which  citation  indeed  was  made  in  the  place  and  at  the  time 
aforesaid,  as  is  aforesaid,  by  them,  the  archdeacon  and  official,  for  the 
reasons  aforesaid  to  the  manifest  despite  of  the  lord  the  king  himself  and  in 
his  contempt  (to  the  penalt.y)  of  twenty  thousand  pounds  and  against  his 
crown  and  dignity  &c.  And  the  aforesaid  archdeacon  and  official  say  that 
they  will  declare  and  admit  the  truth  of  what  they  did  in  this  behalf  in 
presence  of  the  lord  the  king  in  person  and  his  council,  and  the  same  arch- 
deacon for  himself  says  that  he  himself  never  ordered  issue  of  the  citation 

and  1295,  that  of  her  mother's  death,  she  citation    was    therefore    for    Friday,    15 

could  not  have  been  more  than  thirteen  March,  a  week's  notice, 
years  of  age  at  the  time  of  her  marriage.  "  The    Plac.    Abb.    here    mterpolates 

The  earl   "  inoffectually   endeavoured   to  "  Sl'e  Willelmi  de  Neirford,"  words  not  in 

obtain  a  divorce  on  ground  of  a  precon-  the  original  Roll.    This  lady,  according  to 

tract  with  Maud  of  Nerford,  by  whom  he  Blomefield,  vi,  230,  was  daughter  of  Sir 

had   many   children."     G.    E.    Cokayne,  William  Nerford  and  his  wife  Patromlla  de 

Compte(ePfera(7e(ed.l896),  vii,p.  328,sub.  Vaux,  a  considerable  heiress  in  Norfolk. 

"Surrey."  The  seat  of  the  family  was  at  Narford, 

"  Isabella,  daughter  of  Philip  the  Fair  four  miles  N.  W.  of  Swaffham. 
of  France.  '"  I-  e.  of  the  archdeacon.     "  Not  only 

i«  The  "  Crypt  or  sub-chapel  "  of  St.  the  jurisdiction  he  enjoys  is  in  the  eye  of 
Stephen's.  See  E.  W.  Bravley  and  .J.  the  law  ordinary  jurisdiction,  as  being  m 
Britten,  History  of  the  Palace  of  West-  reality  a  branch  of  episcopal  power,  but 
minster  (1836),  p.  449.  The  chapel  itself  he  himself  is  properly  ordinarius,  and  is 
was  probably  either  ruinous  or  under  recognized  as  such  by  the  books  of  corn- 
repair  at  this  time.     Ibid.  p.  120.  mon  law."    Sir  R.  Philliniorc,  Ecclesiasli- 

"  Bracon  Ash,  six  miles  southwest  of  cat  Law  (1878),  i,  239.     Also  E.  Gibson, 

Norwich,  was  generally  known  as  Brakene  Codex  (2nd  ed.  1761),  p.  970. 
at  this  time.    F.h\ome^eld,  Hist,  of  Norfolk  "  The  Placitorum  Abbrevialio  gives  a 

(1806),  v,  83.    The  church  is  dedicated  to  summary,  rather  than  a  transcript,  ending 

St.  Nicholas.  at  "  ipsiiw  "  and,  after  omitting  the  whole 

"  St.   Gregory's  day    was    12   March,  of  the  defendants'   case,   concludes  with 

which  in  1315  fell  on  a  Wednesday.    The  the  judgment,  which  it  also  summarizes. 


29  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

quod  ipse  Citacionem  predictam  nunquam  fieri  precepit  nee  per  ipsum  aut 
ipso  sciente  seu  mandante  facta  fuit  nee  processus-  aliquis  super  negotio 
predicto  vnquam  coram  ipso  movebatur  vel  coram  officiali  suo  prenominato 
per  mandatum  ipsius  Archidiaconi  seu  ipso  sciente  quousque  Episcopus 
Norwycensis^cui  Dominus  Rex  mandaverat  quod  ipse  Episcopus  processum 
negocii  predicti  ipsi  Domino  Regi  mandaret  ipsi  Archidiacono  de  prefato 
mandato  Domini  Regis  constare  fecit.  Et  dicit  quod  ipse  hoc  audito  incon- 
tinenter  mandavit  Oificiali  suo  predicto  inhibendo  ^*  ne  de  negocio  predicto 
coram  ipso  agitando  se  vlterius  intromitteret.  Et  quod  ita  sit  pretendit  se 
acquietare  coram  ipso  Domino  Rege  per  prefatmn  Episcopum  aut  alio  modo 
legitimo  quocumque  ad  voluntatem  ipsius  Domini  Regis. 

Et  predictus  OfEcialis  pro  se  dicit  quod  predicta  Citacio  que  per  ipsum 
dicitur  facta  fuisse  secundum  quod  ei  imponitur  nunquam  per  ipsum  pre- 
ceptum  seu  mandatimi  suum  in  predictis  loco  et  tempore  faciendi  facta 
fuit  nee  ipse  virtute  seu  racione  citationis  illius  in  negocio  predicto  in 
aliquo  processit  processmn  aliquem  continuando  aut  aliquid  in  negocio 
illo  attemptando  postquam  per  predictmii  Archidiaconum  superiorem 
suum  sibi  mandatum  fuit  et  inhibitmn  ne  de  dicto  negocio  coram  ipso  agi- 
tando se  vlterius  intromitteret  <fec.  Et  super  hoc  e.x  parte  ipsius  Domini 
Regis  porrectus  est  quidam  processus  negocii  predicti  coram  predicto  offi- 
ciali habitus  et  per  Episcopum  Norvvycensem  ipsi  Domino  Regi  per  man- 
datum  ipsius  Regis  missus  in  quo  continentur  subscripta  videlicet  quod 
quidam  Robertus  dictus  de  Capella  de  Jakesle  Clericus  Lincolniensis 
Diocesis  supradicto  octauo  die  mensis  Marcii  in  presencia  Roberti  de 
Cokerton  clerici  Dunelmensis  diocesis-'  pubhci  notarii  autoritate  im- 
periali^  testatur  per  publicum  instrimientmn  suum  quod  quidam  Robertus 
dictus  de  Capella  de  Jakesle  clericus  Lincolniensis  diocesis  talia  verba 
proposuit  die  predicto  ante  horam  nonam  dicti  diei  in  capella  bassa  in 
palacio  domini  Edwardi  dei  gracia  Regis  Anglic  illustris  apud  Westmonas- 
terium  Londonensis  diocesis  coram  nobili  muliere  Domina  Johanna' de 
Barro  tunc  ibidem  presente.  Innotescat  vobis  domina  Johanna  de  Barro 
et  pro  constanti  sciatis  quod  vos  ad  instanciam  Matillidis  de  Neyrford  filie 
quondam  Willelmi  de  Neyrford  Militis  defuncti  Norwycensis  diocesis  per 

"  "  Sometimes  that  only  is  called  The  "  "  Inhibition  is  most  commonly  a 
Processe  by  which  a  man  is  called  into  the  Writ  issuing  out  of  a  higher  Court-Chris- 
Court,  because  it  is  the  beginning  or  the  tian  to  a  lower  and  inferior  upon  an 
principal  part  thereof,  by  which  the  rest  Appeal."  Cowel,  Interpreler,  s.  v. 
of  the  business  is  directed."  J.  Cowel,  ->  There  is  a  township  of  Cockerton  in 
Inlerj/relcr,  s.  v.  processe.  the  parish  of  Darlington,  South  Durham. 

"  This   was  John  Salmon,   bishop    of  "  "  We  call  him  a  Notary  that  attests 

Nor^vich,  1299-1325.     He  did  not  become  deeds  or  writings  to  make  them  authentick 

chancellor  till  1319.      He  was  a  faithful  in  another  country."     Cowel,  Interpreter, 

adherent  to  and  much  trusted  by  Edward  s.  v.    The  Notaries  Imperial  were  a  recog- 

II.    By  the  eighth  Constitution  of  Claren-  nized  class,  but  it  would  seem  that  they 

don,  passed  in  1164,  appeal  lay  from  the  were  also  sworn  and  admitted  here.     See 

archdeacon  to  the  bishop.     O.  J.  Reichel,  Coventry  Letter  Book  in  E.  E.  T.  S.  (1907) 

Manuai  of  Canon  Law  (1896),  ii,  332.  pt.  i,  p.  59.    There  were  also  Papal  Nota- 


REX   V.   GERDESTON  29 

aforesaid  and  that  neither  by  him  nor  with  his  knowledge  or  at  his  mandate 
was  it  done  nor  was  any  process- made  or  set  in  motion  touching  the  matter 
aforesaid  either  before  him  or  before  his  official  aforenamed  by  his  mandate 
as  archdeacon  or  with  his  knowledge  until  the  time  that  the  bishop  of  Nor- 
wich,^' whom  the  lord  the  king  commanded  that  he,  the  bishop,  should  send 
the  process  of  the  matter  aforesaid  to  himself  the  lord  the  king,  certified 
him,  the  archdeacon,  of  the  aforementioned  commandment  of  the  lord  the 
king.  And  he  saj-s  that  as  soon  as  this  was  brought  to  his  hearing  he  in- 
continently sent  it  to  his  official  aforesaid  inhibiting"  him  further  to 
meddle  in  the  matter  aforesaid  by  handling  it  before  him.  And  because 
this  is  so  he  claims  his  acquittal  before  the  lord  the  king  in  person  through 
the  aforementioned  bishop  or  in  any  other  lawful  way  at  the  will  of  the 
lord  the  king  himself. 

And  the  aforewritten  official  for  himself  siiys  that  the  aforesaid  citation 
said  by  him  to  have  been  made  as  is  charged  upon  him  never  was  made  by 
him,  his  precept  or  mandate  that  it  should  be  made  at  the  aforesaid  place 
and  time  nor  did  he  himself  by  virtue  or  bj-  reason  of  that  citation  proceed 
in  the  business  aforesaid  in  any  particular  either  by  continuing  any  pro- 
cess or  by  endeavouring  an.vthing  in  the  matter  after  the  mandate  had 
been  received  by  hira  through  the  aforesaid  archdeacon  his  superior,  and 
the  inhibition  issued  against  his  further  meddling  in  the  said  business  by 
handling  it  before  himself  &c.  And  thereupon  on  the  part  of  the  lord  the 
king  himself  there  was  set  out  at  length  a  certain  process  of  the  matter 
aforesaid  held  in  presence  of  the  aforewritten  official  and  delivered  by  the 
bishop  of  Norwich  to  the  king  in  person  by  command  of  the  king  himself,  in 
which  are  contained  the  underwritten  words,  namely,  that  a  certain  Robert, 
called  of  the  Chapel  of  Jackesle,  a  clerk  of  the  diocese  of  Lincoln  on 
the  abovcsaid  eighth  day  of  the  month  of  March  in  presence  of  Robert  of 
Cockerton  a  clerk  of  the  diocese  of  Durham,-*  notary  public  bj'  imperial 
authority,^^  witnesses  by  his  public  instrument  that  a  certain  Robert,  called 
of  the  chapel  of  Jackesle,  a  clerk  of  the  diocese  of  Lincoln,  on  the  ilay  afore- 
said before  the  ninth  hour  of  the  said  day  in  the  low  chapel  in  the  palace 
of  the  lord  Edward  by  the  grace  of  God  the  illustrious  king  of  England  at 
Westminster  in  the  diocese  of  I>ondon  in  presence  of  a  noble  woman  the 
Lady  Joan  of  Barr  then  being  there  uttered  the  following  words:  Lady 
Joan  of  Barr,  Ye  are  to  know  and  be  certified  that  at  the  instance  of  Maud 
of  Neyrford  daughter  of  the  former  William  of  Ne3rford  knight,  deceased, 
of  the  diocese  of  Norwich  ye  have  been  publicly  and  solenmly  summoned 
and  peremptorily  cited  (by  reason  of)  a  public  citation  issued  in  the  parish 
church  of  Methelwoode  of  the  diocese  aforementioned  and  in  the  manor  of 

nies.     Spelman   says    "  Legi    (sed   locum      Ricardi  2,  sed  hos  forte  iu  re  Ecclesiae." 
rescio)  Notarios  publicos  Bulla  papali  hie      Glossarium  (1687)  s.  v.  Notarius. 
in  Anglia  institutes  esse  tempore  Regis 


30  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

decanuni  de  Bradewyce  ^  dicte  diocesis  publice  et  solempniter  estis 
vocata  et  peremptorie  citata  publice  citacionis  edicto  in  ecclesia  paro- 
ehiali  de  IMethelwode  diocesis  prefate  et  in  manerio  nobilis  \'iri  Johannis 
Comitis  de  Warrenna  ibidem  proposito  quod  compareatis  coram  discrete 
viro  domino^  Officiali  domini  Archidiaconi  Noi-ffolcie  vel  eius  Commis- 
sario  in  Ecclesia  parochiali  beati  Nicholai  de  Brakeden  dicte  diocesis  die 
Veneris  proxima  post  festum  beati  Gregorii  Pape  in  causa  matrimonii 
et  divorcii  que  coram  dicto  domino  ofEciali  autoritate  ordinaria  proce- 
dente  vertitur  seu  verti  speratur  inter  ipsam  Matillidem  actricem  ex  parte 
vna  et  nobilem  virum  Johannem  Comitem  de  Warrenna  et  vos  reos  ex 
altera  facturi  et  recepturi  quod  Juris  fuerit  et  racionis.  Acta  sunt  hec  die 
meiise  loco  prcfatis,  presentibus  Waltero  de  Brauteston  Johanne  de  Holme 
clericis  et  aliis  testibus  ad  premissa  vocatis  specialiter  et  rogatis. 

Continetur  eciam  in  eodem  processu  quod  post  citacionem  predictam 
predicte  Comitisse  factam  vt  piedictum  est,  dictus  OfBcialis  eo  quod  dicta 
Comitissa  coram  ipso  die  predicto  non  comparuit  reputauit  ipsam  Comi- 
tissam  contumacem^^  et  iterate  decrevit  fore  vocandam  in  certis  maneriis  et 
ecclesiis  parochialibus  nomiiiatis  in  dicto  processu  si  personaliter  posset  in- 
veniri,  aut  si  dicta  Comitissa  aut  ipsius  procuratores  non  invenirentur  copia 
libelli  predicte  Matillidis  de  Neyrford  versus  predictam  Comitissam  coram 
ipso  OfRciali  porrecti  super  magna  altaria  Ecclesiarum  illarum  apponeretur 
et  in  hostiis  earundem  afSgeretur^  Et  quod  publice  Citacionis  edicto  in 
Maneriis  et  Ecclesiis  predictis  proposito  citaretur  quod  compareret  coram 
ipso  Officiali  vel  ejus  Commissario  in  ecclesia  parochiali  beati  Nicholai  de 
Brackeden  predicta  die  sabbati  proxima  post  dominicam  qua  cantatur  Mis- 
ericordia  Domini''  predicte  Matillidi  in  predicta  causa  responsura,  &c.  Quo 
processu  in  presencia  ipsius  officialis  porrecto  et  ostenso,  quesitum  est'-  ab 
ipso  si  dictum  processum  advocat  et  si  sit  factum  suum.  Qui  dicit  expresse 
quod  sit  set  dicit  quod  cum  in  instrumento  publico  predicto  non  contineatur 

"  Bradenyce,  deciphered  by  the  tran-  in  Decret.  Lib.  II.  Tit.  sdv,  c.  2.    But  "  a 

scriber  of  the  Lincoln's  Inn  MS.  as  Brod-  defendant  .  .  .  requires    to    be    libelled 

ti\-ice.       I    can    find    no    place-name    in  against  or  accused  of  contumacy  before 

Norfolk  resembling  this.     The  citation  was  he  can  be  punished  for  it."     Reichel,  ii, 

first  publicly  pronounced  in  the  church  of  241,  273.     Nor  can  he  be  deemed  con- 

Methelwode  or  Methwold,  a  manor  of  the  tumacious  until  a  single  citation  has  been 

Earl  Warenne  (Blomefield,  ii,  201).    Meth-  thrice  repeated.     lb.  270.     That  this  was 

wold  was  in  the  rural  deanery  of  Cran-  a    ''  simple  "   and   not   a   "  peremptory  " 

wich,  in  Domesday  Cranewisse  (ib.  225).  citation  appears  from  the  shortness  of  the 

This   suggests    that    the   original    record  interval  granted.     Ibid, 
should   have  been  Cranewyce,   but   that  '"  By   constitution   xxvi  of  the  legate 

the  clerk  heard  the  name  incorrectly.  Otho  it  was  ordained  that  the  officer  of  the 

''  The  word  is  perhaps  used  here,  as  in  Court  should  make  diligent  search  for  the 

the  Universities,  to  indicate  a  graduate.  defendant  "  quem  si  rej)erire  non  poterit, 

^'  "  The  service  of  the  citation  at  once  die  Dominico  vel  alio  solenni  in  Ecclesia 

produces  three  effects:    (1)    it  pledges  the  loci  illius  in  quo  degere  consuevit,  dum 

defendant  to  appear,  otherwise  he  is  con-  Missa  cantatur,  publice  Literas  legi  faciat 

tumacious."     Alexander  III  (1159-81)  to  et  exponi."     E.  Gibson,  Codex,  ii,   1002; 

Abbot  of  Ramsay  and  Archdeacon  of  Elj-  Wilkins'  Concilia,  i,  655.    It  would  appear 


REX    V.   GERDESTON  30 

the  noble  man,  tlie  Lord  John  Earl  Warennc  by  the  dean  of  Bradewyce" 
of  the  said  diocese  there  published  ordering  you  to  appear  before  the 
discreet  man  the  lord  ^  official  of  the  lord  the  archdeacon  of  Norfolk  or  his 
commissary  in  the  parish  church  of  Saint  Nicholas  of  Brakedcn  of  the  said 
diocese  on  Friday  next  after  the  feast  of  Saint  Gregory,  Pope,  in  a  cause  of 
matrimony  and  divorce  in  presence  of  the  said  official  which  by  a  process 
with  the  authority  of  the  ordinary  is  now  in  course  or  expected  to  be  in 
course  between  her,  Maud  petitioner  of  the  one  part,  and  the  noble  man 
John  Earl  Warenne  and  for  the  defendent  of  the  other  part,  and  to  do  and 
receive  that  which  is  of  right  and  reason.  Done  on  the  day  in  the  month 
(and)  place  aforementioned  in  the  presence  of  Walter  of  Brantcston,  John  of 
Holme,  clerks,  and  other  witnesses  specially  summoned  and  bidden  to  the 
proceedings  aforesaid.  There  is  contained  also  in  the  same  process  that 
after  the  citation  aforesaid  of  the  aforesaid  countess  had  been  made, 
as  is  aforesaid,  the  said  official  because  the  said  countess  did  not  appear 
before  him  on  the  day  aforesaid  deemed  her  the  countess  to  be  contuma- 
cious^ and  again  decreed  that  she  should  be  summoned  in  certain  manors 
and  parish  churches  named  in  the  said  process  if  she  could  be  found  there 
in  pei-son  or  if  the  said  countess  or  her  proctors  should  not  be  found,  a  copy 
of  the  libel  aforesaid  of  Maud  of  NejTford  against  the  aforesaid  countess 
should  in  the  presence  of  the  official  in  person  be  placed  spread  out  upon 
the  great  altars  of  those  churches  and  should  be  affixed  to  the  doors  of  the 
same  *  and  that  the  issue  of  the  pubhc  citation  having  been  published  in 
the  manors  and  churches  aforesaid,  she  should  be  cited  to  appear  before 
the  official  himself  or  before  his  commissary  in  the  parish  chiu-ch  of  Saint 
Nicholas  of  Brakeden  aforesaid  on  the  Satui-daj'  next  after  the  Sunday  on 
which  is  sung  "  misericordia  Dommi  " ''  to  answer  the  aforesaid  Maud  in 
the  aforesaid  cause,  &c.  Which  process  in  the  presence  of  the  official  in 
person  having  been  produced  and  exhibited  the  question  was  asked  ^-  of  him 
if  he  avows  the  said  process,  and  if  it  is  his  act.    He  answers  expressly  that 

from  Otho's  constitution  that   construe-  ways  and  means  (viis  et  modis)."    Reichel 

live  and  fictitious  service  had  been  effected  ii,  272. 

by  laying  citations  upon  the  altar  and  then  "  The  introit  of  Mass  for  the  second 

remo\'ing  them,  the  defendant  being  given  Sunday  after  Easter  is  taken  from  Psalm 

no  opportunity  of  becoming  informed  of  33    (Vulgate    version),    5,    0.      "  Miseri- 

them.      His    constitution    implicitly    dis-  cordia  Domini  plena  est  terra.     Alleluia, 

penses   with   this   formality   which   must  Verbo  Domini  coeli  firmati  sunt,  .\lleluia." 

therefore  have   been  retained   as  a  local  Easter  Day,  131.5,  falling  on  23   March, 

custom  in  the  diocese  of  Nonvich.    By  a  the  second  Sunday  after  would  be  6  April 

decretal  of  Gregory  IX   (1227^1)    (Lib.  and  the  Saturday  following  12  April.    The 

II.  Tit.  xiv,  c.  10)  it  was  ordained  that  passage  was  unintelligible  to  and  hope- 

"  when     personal     service    can    not    be  lessly  bungled  by  the  transcriber  of  the 

effected,  the  judge  may  decree  the  cita-  Lincoln's   Inn    MS.   whose   Latinity   was 

tion  to  be  affixed  to  the  door  of  his  (the  obviously  imperfect, 
defendant's)  house,  or  to  the  Church  door  "  Presumably  by  the  council.    On  the 

during  the  time  of  divane  service,  and  a  practice  of  administering  interrogatories, 

copy  left  there.    This  is  termed  service  by  see  Introd.  pp.  xlii-xliii. 


31  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

quod  predicta  Comitissa  citata  fuit  Immo  tantunimodo  continetur  in 
eodem  Instrumento  quod  quedam  notificacio  eidem  Comitisse  facta  fuit  de 
quadam  citacione  sibi  alibi  quam  in  Palacio  predicto  facta  et  per  quemdam 
Decanum  in  Diocesi  Norwycensi  videtur  sibi  quod  racione  illius  notifica- 
cionis  que  non  fuit  citacio  cum  ipse  per  citaciones  testificatas  per  Decanos 
et  ministros  suos  in  negotio  predicto  proeessit  et  processum  fecit  et  non 
virtute  notificacionis  predicte  siW  facte  quod  in  nullo  deliquid  contra 
dominuni  Regem  aut  aliuni  &c.  Quesitum  est  insuper  ab  eodem  Officiali  si 
postquam  per  prefatum  Arcliidiaconum  superiorem  suum  sibi  inhibitum 
fuit  ne  in  negocio  predicto  vlterius  procederet.  Et  postquam  predictus 
Episcopus  prefato  Archidiacono  de  mandato  Domini  Regis  predicto  con- 
stare  fecit  si  in  negocio  predicto  vlterius  proeessit  dicit  quod  sic  Et  prout 
ad  officium  suum  pertinuit  ut  sibi  videbatur  quod  bene  et  licite  procedere 
potuit,  &c. 

Et  quia  responsione  et  racionibus  prescripti  officialis  auditis  et  intellectis 
inspectoque  et  examinato  processu  negotii  predicti  coram  ipso  habito  et 
per  prefatum  Episcopum  domino  Regi  misso  et  quem  processum  idem 
OfRcialis  advocat  esse  factum  suum  continetur  in  eodem  videlicet  in  In- 
strumento publico  in  eodem  processu  insertum  quod  predictus  Robertus 
dictus  de  capella  de  Jakesle  in  predicta  capella  bassa  in  Palacio  domini 
Regis  predicto  qui  est  locus  exemptus  ab  oiiini  jurisdiccione  ordinaria  tam 
racione  dignitatis  et  corone  sue  quam  libertatis  Ecclesie  Westmonasteri- 
ensis  et  maxime  in  presencia  ipsius  domini  Regis  tempore  parliamenti  sui 
ibidem,  Ita  quod  nullus  summoniciones  seu  citaciones  ibidem  faciat  et 
precipue  illis  qui  sunt  de  sanguine  Domini  Regis  quibus  major  reverentia 
quam  aliis  fieri  debet  Compertum  est  quod  predictus  Officialis  vi  et  effectu 
Instrumenti  publici  predicti  et  racione  verborum  in  eodem  contentormn 
processum  in  negocio  predicto  coram  eo  inchoatum  versus  prefatara 
Comitissam  continuauit  et  eam  contumacem  reputauit  prout  in  predicto 
processu  plenius  continetur  occasione  contumacie  seu  post  notificacionem 
predictam  coram  ipso  Officiali  per  ipsum  notarium  predictum  sibi  testifi- 
catam  admittens  et  acceptans  notificacionem  illam  et  processum  suum 
super  eadem  continuans  ac  si  esset  citacio  debita  et  manifcsta,  Nee  invenitur 
in  predicto  processu  quod  aliqua  alia  citacio  super  prefatam  Comitissam 
per  decanos  aut  alios  facta  fuit  qualitercuraque  idem  Officialis  dicat  se  pre- 
dictum processum  fecisse  et  continuasse  per  citaciones  per  Decanos  suos 
sibi  testificatas  nee  idem  officialis  ignorare  debuit  quin  predictus  locus  qui 
est  solempnior  locus  istius  Regni  videlicet  palacium  predictum  quod  situm 
est  infra  libcrtatem  Ecclesie  Westmonasteriensis  vbi  nulli  Archiepiscopi 

"  Qu.  a  blunder  for  ibi,  i.  e.  in  the  crypt  of  St.  Stephens. 


REX   V.   GERDESTON  31 

it  is,  but  he  says  that  in  the  pubhc  instrument  aforesaid  it  is  not  contained 
that  the  aforesaid  countess  was  cited,  but  it  is  onl}^  contained  in  the  same 
instrument  that  a  certain  notification  was  made  to  the  same  countess 
touching  a  certain  citation  made  to  her  elsewhere  than  in  the  palace  afore- 
said and  by  a  certain  dean  in  the  diocese  of  Norwich,  it  seems  to  him  that 
by  reason  of  that  notification,  which  was  not  a  citation  since  he  himself 
proceeded  in  the  matter  aforesaid  by  way  of  citations  attested  by  his  deans 
and  ministers  and  made  process,  and  not  by  virtue  of  the  notification  afore- 
said there  made,  that  that  being  so,  he  has  in  no  wise  offended  against  the 
lord  the  king  or  any  other  &c.     The  question  being  further  asked  of  the  same 
official  if,  after  that  the  inhibition  had  been  issued  to  him  by  the  aforemen- 
tioned archdeacon  his  superior,  against  further  process  in  the  matter  afore- 
said.    And  if  after  that  the  aforesaid  bishop  by  command  aforesaid  of  the 
lord  the  king  certified  the  aforementioned  archdeacon  thereof,  he  proceeded 
fuj-ther  in  the  matter  aforewritten,  he  says  yes,  and  as  pertained  to  his 
office,  as  it  seemed  to  him,  that  he  was  able  well  and  lawfully  to  proceed  &c. 
And  because,  after  the  hearing  and  understanding  of  the  answer  and 
reasons  of  the  aforewritten  Official,  and  after  inspection  and  examination 
of  the  process  of  the  matter  aforesaid  had  in  his  presence  and  by  the  afore- 
mentioned bishop  sent  to  the  lord  the  king,  which  process  also  the  same 
official  avows  as  his  act,  it  is  contained  in  the  same,  that  is,  being  inserted  in 
the  public  instrument  in  the  same  process,  that  the  aforesaid  Robert  of  the 
chapel  of  Jackesle  in  the  aforesaid  low  chapel  in  the  palace  of  the  lord  the 
king  afore^vTitten,  which  is  a  place  exempt  even  from  all  jurisdiction  of  the 
ordinary  by  reason  as  well  of  the  king's  dignity  and  of  that  of  his  crown  as 
of  the  liberty  of  the  church  of  Westminster,  and  particularly  in  presence  of 
the  lord  the  king  in  person  at  the  time  of  his  parliament  there,  so  that  none 
there  issue  summons  or  citations  and  especially  to  those  of  the  blood  of  the 
lord  the  king  to  whom  greater  reverence  than  to  others  ought  to  be  paid, 
it  is  found  that  the  aforesaid  official,  by  force  and  effect  of  the  public 
instrument  aforesaid  and  by  reason  of  words  contained  in  the  same,  con- 
tinued a  process  in  the  aforesaid  matter  begun  before  hmiself  against  the 
aforementioned  countess  and  deemed  her  to  be  contumacious  as  more  fully 
is  contained  in  the  process  aforesaid,  and  on  account  of  her  contumacy  or 
else  after  the  notification  aforesaid  in  presence  of  him,  the  official,  attested 
to  him  by  the  aforesaid  notary  in  person  he  admitted  and  received  that 
notification  and  continued  his  process  upon  the  same  as  if  it  were  a  due  and 
manifest  citation,  and  it  is  not  found  in  the  same  process  that  anj^  other 
citation  as  to  the  aforementioned  countess  was  made  by  deans  or  others, 
howsoever  the  same  official  may  say  that  he  made  the  aforesaid  process 
and  continued  it  by  means  of  citations  attested  to  him  by  his  deans, 
whereas  the  same  official  ought  not  to  be  ignorant  that  the  aforesaid  place 
is  a  very  solemn  place  of  the  kingdom,  namely,  the  palace  aforesaid, 
situate  within  the  liberty  of  the  church  of  Westminster  where  no  arch- 


32  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

Episcopi  seu  alii  quicunque  Jurisdiccionem  ordinariam  exercere  possint  aut 
debeant  Idemque  officialis  Cognouit  quod  in  negocio  predicto  processit  et 
processum  continuauit  postquam  per  superiorem  suum  Archidiaconum  pre- 
dictiiin  sibi  inhibitum  fuit  ne  in  negocio  predicto  procederet  que  quidem 
omnia  in  dedecus  et  contemptum  domini  Regis  manifeste  redundant  et 
contra  Coronam  et  dignitatem  suam. 

Consideratum  est  quod  idem  Officialis  committatur  Turri  Londonie 
et  ibidem  custodiatur  ad  voluntatem  domini  Regis.  Et  quo  ad  predictmn 
Archidiaconum  quia  ipse  pretendit  se  acquietare  quod  ipse  citacionem  pre- 
dictam  nunquam  fieri  precepit  nee  aliquid  de  predicto  negocio  scivit  aut  se 
intromisit  quousque  prefatus  Episcopus  sibi  de  mandato  Domini  Regis 
constare  fecit  prout  in  responsione  sua  superius  continetur,  et  tunc  incon- 
tinenti  inhibuit  dicto  Officiali  suo  ne  se  vlterius  inde  intromitteret.  Et  idem 
Officialis  hoc  idem  in  responsione  sua  superius  cognovit,  de  gracia  Domini 
Regis  speciali  datus  est  ei  dies  ad  proximimi  Parliamentum'*  tunc  de  volun- 
tate  domini  Regis  inde  audienda  &c.  Et  de  predictis  notaiiis  et  testibus 
preceptum  est  vicecomitibus  Londoniensi  Eboracensi  et  Lincolniensi 
^^,°°  videlicet  singuUs  eorum  separatim  quod  attachiarent  predictos  Notarium'^ 
Lincoln'  et  tcstes  Ita  quod  eos  habeant  coram  ipso  domino  Rege  in  crastino  sancti 
Johannis  Baptiste'^  vbicunrque^  &c.  ad  respondendum  Domino  Regi  super 
contemptubus  et  transgressionibus  per  ipsos  Domino  Regi  factis  prout  in 
processu  prescripto  plenius  continetur  &c. 


COSFELD  V.  LEMDYS'  ETC. 

1322  '"^  nostre  Seigneur  le  Roj'  et  son  consail  monstre  Godekyn  de  Cosfeld  - 
de  Estland  qe  la  ou  il  fu  venant  vers  la  seint  Botolf '  en  la  mier  ove  ime  neef 
charge  ove  diverses  biens  cest  asaver  dure  pcsshun  et  borde  et  autres  cha- 
teux  a  la  vaUaunce  de  trois  centz  livers  la  quele  fu  enanckore  pres  de 
Skegnes  en  la  Conte  de  Nicole  le  Meskirdy  en  la  semaigne  de  Pentecost^  Ian 
du  regne  le  Roi  Edward  qore  est  qe  dieu  gard  quinzime  et  les  mariners  de  la 
dite  neef  furont  en  la  dite  ville  de  Skegnes  de  les  alower  un  loderesman  la 
vindront  Robert  Leveys,'  Thomas  Springet,'  WiUiam  Punch '  et  Gerveys 
Alard  *  Mariners  de  Portz.    Et  la  dite  Neef  ove  totes  les  biens  qe  la  einz 

"  The  next  parliament  met  at  Lincoln  '  Found  in  Ancierit  PelUiom,  no.  4913. 

on  27  Januarj',  1316.    Parrj-,  Parliaments  '  or  Gosefeld  (?).     No  other  reference 

and  Councils,  p.  79.  to  him  has  been  found,  but  other  mer- 

"  Sic;  although  plural  before.  chants  of  Eastland  and  Prussia  we  know 

"  25  June,  131.5.  were  coming  to  England  under  letters  of 

"  The   ancient   form   of  the  council's  protection    and   sjife   conduct.     Cal.   CI. 

writ,  continued  also  in  the  king's  bench.  Rolls,  16  Ed.  11,  266,  293,  360,  &c. 

See  Leadam,  Select  Cases  in  the  Star  Cham-  '  Boston,   the  principal   port   in   Eng- 

ber  (Seldcn  Society,  1902),  p.  xvi.    In  June  land  for  the  ICastland  trade  wliich  came 

Edward  himself  appears  to  have  been  with  from  Liibeck,  Kampen,  Hamburg,  &c. 

the  army  in  Scotland,  and  the  "  ubicum-  *  2  June,  1322. 

que  "  must  almost  necessarily  have  been  a  '  Mentioned     as     Robert     Lewys    of 

form.  Greenwich.     Cal.  Pat.  IS  Ed.  II,  160. 


COSFELD   V.   LEVEYS,  ETC.  32 

bishops,  bishops  or  other  persons  whosoever  can  or  ought  to  exercise  the 
jurisdiction  of  an  ordinary,  and  whereas  the  same  official  has  admitted 
that  he  proceeded  in  the  matter  aforesaid  and  continued  process  after  that 
an  inhibition  had  been  issued  to  him  by  his  superior  the  archdeacon  afore- 
said against  proceeding  in  the  matter  aforesaid,  (and  whereas)  all  these 
proceedings  manifestly  redound  to  the  despite  and  are  in  contempt  of  the 
lord  the  king  and  against  his  crown  and  dignity. 

It  is  adjudged  that  the  same  official  be  committed  to  the  Tower  of 
London  and  be  there  in  custody  at  the  king's  pleasure  and  as  touching  the 
aforesaid  archdeacon  for  that  he  claims  acquittal  in  that  he  himself  never 
ordered  the  said  citation  to  be  made  nor  knew  anything  of  the  aforesaid 
matter  or  meddled  therein  until  the  aforementioned  bishop  certified  him  of 
the  comniandinent  of  the  lord  the  king  as  in  his  answer  is  before  contained 
and  then  incontinently  inhibited  his  said  official  from  fuilher  meddling  in 
that  behalf.  And  the  same  official  has  in  his  answer  before  admitted  this 
particular,  daj'  is  given  him  of  the  lord  the  king's  special  grace  to  the  next 
parliament,"  at  which  time  he  is  to  hear  in  that  behalf  as  to  the  will  of 
the  lord  the  king  <S:c.  And  concerning  the  aforesaid  notaries  and  witnesses, 
a  precept  has  been  issued  to  the  sheriffs  of  London,  York  and  Lincoln, 
namely  to  each  of  them  separately,  to  attach  the  aforesaid  notarj^  and 
witnesses  so  that  they  may  have  them  before  the  lord  the  king  in  person  on 
the  morrow  of  St.  John  the  Baptist's  day^^  wheresoever"  &c.  to  answer  to 
the  lord  the  king  touching  the  contempts  and  trespasses  by  them  done 
against  the  lord  the  king  according  as  in  the  process  above  written  is  more 
fully  contained. 

COSFELD  V.  LE^'EYS'  ETC. 

To  our  lord  the  king  and  his  council  shows  Godkin  de  Cosfeld  ^  of  East- 
1322  land  that  whereas  he  was  coming  by  sea  toward  St.  Botolph's  '  with  a  ship 
laden  with  diverse  goods,  namelj^  dried  fish  and  boards  and  other  chattels  to 
the  value  of  £300,  which  (ship)  was  at  anchor  near  Skegness  in  the  county 
of  Lincoln  on  Wednesday  in  the  week  of  Pentecost ''  in  the  fifteenth  year  of 
the  reign  of  the  present  king  Edward,  whom  may  God  preserve,  and  (while) 
the  mariners  of  the  said  ship  were  in  the  said  town  of  Skegness  to  liire  a 
steereman,  there  came  Robert  Leveys,'  Thomas  Springet,*  William  Punch  ' 
and  Gervase  Alard,'  mariners  of  the  port.    And  the  said  ship  with  all  the 

'  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  these  The  matter  was  given  to  a  commission  of 

men  were  systematically  engaged  in  pira-  oyer  and  terminer  under  instructions  that 

cies  of  the  kind,  for  earlier  in  the  same  year  the  jury  should  be  men  of  Suffolk  (Cal. 

there   was  complaint   of  a   merchant   of  Pat.  15  E<1.  II,  IGO). 
Almain    that    Thomas    Springet,   Robert  '  Pounche  or  Pouche. 

Lewj's,  Gervase  Alard  and  others  boarded  '  He  was  involved  in  still  another  case 

his  ship  while  anchored  in  the  port  of  Har-  of  the  kind  in  1323,  this  time  at  Sandwich, 

wich,  assaulted  him  and  his  men  and  took  together    with    Stephen    and     Reginald 

away  the  ship  with  all  the  goods  in  her.  Alard.    Cat.  Pat.,  17  Ed.  II,  385. 


33  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

furont  pristeront  meneront  tanqe  a  Blakeneye  et  de  ceo  ount  fete  lour 
volunte.  Et  les  Marchantz  et  touz  les  Mariners  qe  furont  en  la  dite  Neef 
sur  la  venue  le  dit  Robert  Leveys  et  ses  compaignons  de  la  dite  Neef  pur 
doute  fuiront.  De  quel  trespas  le  dit  Marchant  prie  qe  reraedie  luy  soit 
fait. 

[Endorsed,  1: — ]   Lavisement  du  Counsel!. 

II  semble  au  conseil  si  il  pleise  a  nostre  Seignur  le  Roi  qil  est  bien  qe 
nostre  seignur  mande  a  ceus  qe  sont  nomez  trespassours  en  cestes  peticions 
par  lettres  asperes  queux  facent  dues  restitucions  sant  delay  des  biens 
issint  prises  ou  qil  seient  devant  le  Roi  a  certein  jour  de  respondre  sur  ceo 
et  a  estier  a  dreit. 

[2:  — ]   Lassent  puis  du  Roy.' 

Le  Roi  veut  q  ensi  soit  fait  et  qe  les  siens  ne  soient  en  ce  rien  esparniez 
plus  qe  autres.  Car  il  lui  semble  qe  les  siens  deussent  melz  garder  la  pees 
q  autres.    Et  pur  ce  veut  qil  soient  chastiez  aussibien  come  autres. 

EXAMINATION  OF  GILBERT  BLOUNT ' 

1350  Memorandum  quod  Gilbertus  le  Blount  ^  de  Plessys  venit  die  Veneris 
vicesimo  secundo  die  lanuarii  anno  regni  domini  Edwardi  Regis  Anglie  et 
Francie,  Anglie  videlicet  vicesimo  tercio  et  Francie  decimo,  apud  West- 
monasterium  in  Cancellariam  predicti  Regis  coram  Cancellario '  et  The- 
saurario  ^  et  aliis  de  consilio  ipsius  Regis  tunc  ibidem  existentibus  virtute 
cuiusdam  brevis  dicti  Regis  eidem  Gilberto  directo  de  essendo  coram  ipso 
Rege  et  consilio  suo  in  cancellaria  sua,  ad  informandum  ipsum  Regem  et 
consilium  suimi  super  aliquibus  prefato  Gilberto  ex  parte  dicti  Regis  ex- 
ponendis,  et  ad  faciendum  quod  sibi  per  dictmn  Regem  et  consilium  iniun- 
geretur.*  Et  idem  Gilbertus,  ibidem  iuratus  et  examinatus  *  de  forma  et 
condicione  quibus  Thomas  Fabel,'  unus  collectorum  decime  et  quinte- 
decime  dicto  Regi  per  laicos  nuper  concessarmn  in  comitatu  Essex',  terras, 
tenementa,  bona  et  catalla  sua  ante  mortem  suam  alienauit,  dixit  et  cog- 
nouit  per  sacramentum  suum  quod  predictus  Thomas,  bone  et  sane  me- 
morie  existens,  tercio  die  ante  mortem  suam,  videlicet  sexto  decimo  die 
Mail  anno  predict©,  cognouit  se  debuisse  dicto  domino  Regi  quadringentas 
libras  et  plus  de  decima  et  quintadecima  predictis,  et  propter  hoc  et  ex  aliis 

'  It  was  a  rule  laid  down  in  1.362  that  Gilbert  is  reported  to  have  held  tenements 

for  matters  touching  the  king  bills  should  in  Beaumont,  Great  Oakley  and  Ramsay, 

be  brought  to  him  for  endorsement.     Rot.  Cal.  CI.  Rolls,  25  Ed.  Ill,  340. 
Pari,  ii,  272.  a  John    of    Thoresby,    bishop    of    St. 

'  Parliamentary  and  Council  Proceed-  David's,  chancellor  1349-56. 
inffs  (Chancery),  file  46,  no.  20.  *  William     of     lildington,     bishop     of 

'  Of  the  leading  particijiant  in  this  case  Winchester,  treasurer  1345-58. 
less  is  known  than  of  any  other  person  '  This  writ  was  issued  19  Dec.  1349. 

involved.     He  was  evidently  of   a  local  The  same  writ  mutalis  mulandis  was  issued 

family  of  repute  in  Essex  identified  by  also    to    John    Termer,    Roger  de    Pole, 

name  with  Pleshy  the  seat  of  the  Bohuns.  Humphrey   de   Walden,    John  de  Depe- 


EXAMINATION    OF   GILBERT   BLOUNT  33 

goods  in  her  they  seized  and  took  to  Blakeney,  and  have  done  as  they 
wished  witii  her.  And  the  merchants  and  all  the  mariners  that  were  in  the 
ship  at  the  coming  of  the  said  Robert  Leveys  and  his  companions  fled  for 
fear  from  the  ship.  For  this  trespass  the  said  merchant  prays  that  remedy 
be  afforded  him. 

[Endorsed,  1:  — ]   The  advice  of  the  council. 

It  seems  good  to  the  council,  if  it  pleases  our  lord  the  king,  that  our 
lord  should  conunand  those  named  as  trespassers  in  these  petitions,  by 
severe  letters,  to  make  without  delay  due  restitution  of  the  goods  taken  or 
come  before  the  king  at  a  certain  day  to  answer  thereupon  and  stand  trial. 

[2:  — ]   The  following  assent  of  the  king.' 

The  king  wills  that  this  should  be  done  and  that  his  own  (men)  should 
not  be  spared  in  this  (matter)  any  more  than  others.  For  it  seems  to  him 
that  his  own  (men)  ought  to  keep  the  peace  better  than  others.  Wherefore 
he  wills  that  they  should  be  chastised  as  well  as  others. 

EXA]MINATION  OF  GILBERT  BLOUNT  ' 

1350  Be  it  remembered  that  on  Friday  the  twenty-second  day  of  January  in 
the  reign  of  our  lord  Edward  king  of  England  and  France,  that  is,  of  Eng- 
land the  twenty-third  j'ear  and  of  France  the  tenth  year,  Gilbert  le  Blount^ 
of  Plessy  came  into  the  chancery  of  the  aforesaid  king  at  Westminster 
before  the  chancellor '  and  treasurer  *  and  others  of  the  said  king's  council 
then  remaining  in  the  chancery,  (appearing)  in  response  to  a  certain  writ  of 
the  said  king  directed  to  the  said  Gilbert  to  be  before  the  king  himself  and 
his  council  in  liis  chancery,  to  inform  the  king  himself  and  his  council  upon 
certain  matters  to  be  laid  before  the  aforesaid  Gilbert  in  behalf  of  the  said 
king,  and  to  do  whatever  should  be  enjoined  upon  him  by  the  said  king  and 
council.'  And  the  said  Gilbert,  having  been  sworn  and  examined  *  concern- 
ing the  manner  and  circimistances  in  which  Thomas  Fabel,'  one  of  the  col- 
lectors in  the  county  of  Essex  of  the  tenth  and  fifteenth  recently  granted  to 
the  said  king  by  the  laity,  had  ahenated  his  lands,  tenements,  goods  and 
chattels  before  his  death,  upon  his  oath  declared  and  acknowledged  that 
the  aforesaid  Thomas,  being  of  good  and  sound  mind,  three  days  before  his 
death,  that  is,  on  the  sixteenth  day  of  May  in  the  j'ear  aforesaid,  acknowl- 
edged that  he  owed  the  said  lord  the  king  four  hundred  pounds  and  more 
out  of  the  aforesaid  tenth  and  fifteenth,  and  that  for  this  reason  as  well  as 

den,  and  William  de  Say.     Col.  CI.  Rolls,  and  also  a  tenement  called  Benflete  in  the 

152.  honour   of    Hatfield    Peverell    (Ing.    post 

'  An  early  example  of  an  interrogatory  Mortem,  24  Ed.  Ill,  file  107,  old  no.  28; 

examination.   See  Introd.  Part  I.  T.  Morant,  JJssex  [18161,  ii,  IIG,  131).     He 

'  He  was  in  1347  collector  of  the  aid  for  died  about  IG  May,  1349,  leaving  a  widow 

knighting  the  king's  son  (Cal.  CI.  Rolls,  Mary  and  a  son  John.     Various  deeds  in 

244),  and  in  1348  a  collector  of  the  tenth  his  name  have  been  found  but  not  the 

and  fifteenth  (Cal.  Pal.  Rolls,  236).     He  one  here  mentioned, 
held  two  parts  of  the  manor  of  Falkborne 


34  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

causis  dedit  lohanni  Fermer,'  militi,  de  bonis  et  catallis  ipsius  Thome  ad 
valenciam  centum  librarum  ad  satisfaciendum  inde  Willelrao  de  Bohun,' 
Comiti  Norhampton',  de  centum  libris  eidem  Comiti  de  quadam  assigna- 
cione  sibi  super  decima  et  quintadecima  predictis  in  dicto  comitatu  facta, 
et  eciam  idem  Thomas  dedit  et  concessit  eisdem  lohanni  Fermer,  Gilberto 
le  Blount,  Roberto  de  Teye/"  Leoni  de  Bradenham,"  lohanni  de  Boys'-  et 
lohanni  de  Oxeneye "  residumn  omnium  bonorum  et  catallormn  ipsius 
Thome,  ac  terras  et  tenementa  sua  in  comitatu  Essex',  necnon  maritagium 
lohannis,  filii  et  heredis  eiusdem  Thome,  cuius  donacionis  et  concessionis 
pretex-tu  predictus  Gilbertus  nomine  suo  et  predictorum  lohannis,  Roberti, 
Leonis,  lohannis  et  lohannis,  cepit  seisinam  de  terris  et  tenementis  ac  bonis 
et  catalhs  predictis,  vivente  predicto  Thoma,  sub  tah  condicione  quod 
omnia  bona  et  catalla  eisdem  lohanni,  Gilberto,  Roberto,  Leoni,  lohanni 
et  lohanni  sic  in  communi  data  ac  maritagium  predictum  pro  diuersis 
debitis  que  idem  Thomas  tam  de  decima  et  quintadecima  predictis  quam 
ex  aliis  causis  dicto  Regi  debebat  venderentur,  et  sic  dicta  bona  et  catalla 
ac  maritagium  ad  dicta  debita  acquietandum  non  sufEcerent,  tunc  dicti 
feoffati  de  dictis  terris  et  tenementis  ad  valenciam  tanti  de  quanto  dicta 
debita  quietari  possent  venderent,  et  dicto  domino  Regi  inde  satisfacerent. 
Et  eciam  predictus  Gilbertus  dixit  quod  ad  quandam  curiam  ante  mortem 
dicti  Thome  tentam  apud  Falkeborne  per  Adam  Passefeld'  omnes  tenentes 
maneriorum  de  Falkeborne"  et  Termyns'*  se  de  fidehtatibus  suis  prefatis 
feoffatis  attornauerunt,  per  quod  dictum  fuit  prefato  Gilberto  quod  esset 
coram  Thesaurario  et  Baronibus  de  Scaccario  apud  Westmonasterium  die 
Lune  in  festo  conuersionis  Sancti  Pauli  '^  ad  faciendum  in  hac  parte  quod 
ibidem  super  hoc  contigerit  ordinari.'' 

'  Member  of  a  prominent  local  fanaily,  1355  he  was  attorney  for  the  aforesaid 

holding  a   life  estate   in   the   manors   of  earl  of  Northampton.    Morant,  ii,  202. 

Foxearth  and  Weston  (Morant,  ii,  326).  "  or  Lionel  B.  held  a  tenement  in  Lan- 

He  was  a  knight  of  the  shire  for  Essex  in  genhou  in  Winstree  (Morant,  i,  416).    In 

the  parliament  of   1346,   and  sometimes  1355  he  was  commissioner  of  the  peace 

served  as  commissioner  of  oyer  and  ter-  and  justice  of  labourers  {Cal.  Pat.  Rolls, 

miner.     He   was   one   of   the   gentlemen  294),  and  in  1360  commissioner  of  array  in 

mentioned  above  who  were  summoned  in  Essex   (ibid.  413).     He  was   persistently 

the  present  case.  engaged  in  quarrels  with  his  neighbors  up 

'  Third  son  of  Humphrey  Earl  of  Here-  to  the  time  of  his  death  in  1361. 

ford  and  Essex;   he  died  in  1359  or  1360.  "  Son  of  John  of  Boys,  acquired  in  1352 

Morant,  ii,  451;  Dugdale,  Baronage,!,  185.  a  moiety  of  the  manor  of  Blunts  Hall  in 

">  or  Tay,  the  name  of  a  manor  in  Lex-  Witham  and   Hatfield   PevercU   {Cal.  CI. 

den,  held  lay  a  family  that  thence  derived  Rolls,  468).    From  him  came  the  name  of 

its  name.    From  1351  to  13.56  this  Robert  Boj's  Hall  in  Halstead  (Morant,  ii,  108). 

served  conspicuousl}'  as  commissioner  of  He  served  as  commissioner  of  array  in 

the  peace  and  justice  to  enforce  the  stat-  1360  {Cal.  Pal.  Rolls,  413)  and  died  the 

utes  of  labourers  {Cal.  Pat.  passim).    In  year  after. 


EXAMINATION    OF    GILBERT   BLOUNT 


34 


for  other  causes  he  gave  to  John  Fermer,"  knight,  goods  and  chattels  of  the 
said  Thomas  to  the  value  of  a  hundred  pounds,  in  order  thereby  to  satisfy 
William  of  Bohun,'  earl  of  Northampton,  for  the  hundred  pounds  (due)  to 
the  said  earl  by  icason  of  a  certain  assignment  that  had  been  made  to  him 
out  of  the  aforesaid  tenth  and  fifteenth  in  the  said  county;  also  the  said 
Thomas  gave  and  granted  to  the  same  John  Fermer,  Gilbert  le  Blount, 
Robert  of  Tcy,'"  Leon  Bradenham,"  John  of  Bois'-  and  John  of  Oxney"  the 
residue  of  all  the  goods  and  chattels  of  the  said  Thomas,  and  also  his  lands 
and  tenements  in  the  county  of  Essex,  as  well  as  the  marriage  of  John  son 
and  heir  of  the  said  Thomas;  by  pretext  of  this  grant  and  concession  the 
aforesaid  Gilbert  in  the  name  of  himself  and  of  the  aforesaid  John,  Robert, 
Leon,  John,  and  John  took  seisin  of  the  aforesaid  lands  and  tenements  and 
also  goods  and  chattels,  while  the  aforesaid  Thomas  was  living,  under  the 
condition  that  all  the  goods  and  chattels  thus  given  in  common  to  the  said 
John,  Gilbert,  Robert,  Leon,  John,  and  John  as  well  as  the  aforesaid 
marriage  should  be  sold  for  various  debts  which  the  said  Thomas  owed  the 
said  king  for  the  aforesaid  tenth  and  fifteenth  as  well  as  for  other  causes; 
and  should  the  said  goods  and  chattels  together  with  the  marriage  not  be 
sufficient  to  pay  off  the  said  debts,  then  the  said  feoffees  were  to  sell  the 
said  lands  and  tenements  in  order  to  pay  off  as  manj'  of  the  said  debts  as 
possible,  and  they  were  to  give  satisfaction  therefor  to  the  king.  Moreover 
the  aforesaid  Gilbert  said  that  at  a  certain  court  held  by  Adam  Passefeld 
at  Falkborne  before  the  death  of  the  said  Thomas,  aO  the  tenants  of  the 
manors  of  Falkborne '■'  and  Termine'^  attorned  to  the  aforesaid  feoffees; 
wherefore  the  aforesaid  Gilbert  was  told  that  he  should  be  before  the 
treasurer  and  barons  of  the  exchequer  at  Westminster  on  Monday  the 
feast  of  the  Conversion  of  St.  Paul,"  to  do  in  this  matter  whatever  should 
there  be  ordained." 


"  Son  of  Walter  of  Oxenhey,  or  Oxen- 
eye,  was  granted  the  manor  of  Wastails  in 
Froshwell  (Morant,  ii,  522).  He  acted  in 
various  transactions  as  mainpernor,  wit- 
ness and  attorney  {Cal.  Pat.  passim).  In 
1357  he  is  credited  with  holding  a  fourth 
part  of  the  office  of  usher  of  the  exchequer 
{Cal.  Pat.  583). 

"  A  manor  in  Witham,  two  parts  of 
which  had  been  held  by  Thomas  Fabel. 
Morant,  ii,  116. 

"  Another  name  for  the  manor  of  Hat- 
field Peverell.     Ibid.  129. 

"  25  Jan.  1350. 

"  The  litigation  of  which  this  record  is  a 


part  seems  to  have  been  a  suit  on  the  part 
of  the  heirs  for  recovery  of  the  balance  of 
the  property  alienated  in  trust.  The  out- 
come of  the  affair  is  learned  in  part  from 
the  enrollment  of  a  deed,  dated  28  Oct. 
1350,  whereby  Lionel  of  Bradenham  and 
Gilbert  le  Blount  enfeoffed  to  Mary  late 
the  wife  of  Thomas  Fabcl  and  to  John 
their  son  all  the  lands  which  had  belonged 
to  Thomas  in  Hatfield  Peverell,  Terling, 
Fairsted,  White  Notley,  Wickham,  Bore- 
ham,  Woodham,  &c.,  and  two  parts  of  the 
manor  of  Falkborne  and  the  advowson  of 
Falkborne  church.  Cal.  CI.  Rolls,  24  Ed. 
Ill,  274. 


35  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 


REX  V.  WILLIAM  MIDDLETOX  ' 

1353  Memorandum  quod  Willelmus  de  Middelton,-  \-icecomcs  et  escaetor 
domini  Regis  in  comitatibus  Norf  et  Suff',  coram  consilio  domini  Regis  in 
camera  domus  fratrum  predicatorum  London','  ubi  consilium  domini  Regis 
tenetur,  allocutus  de  eo  quod  ipse,  vacante  ecclesia  de  Denton  *  Norwi- 
censis  diocesis  et  presentacione  eiusdcm  ecclesie  ad  ipsum  doniinmn  Regem 
racione  feodonma  militum  et  aduocacionum  ecclesiarum  que  Eua,  que  fuit 
loxor  Roberti  de  Tateshale  *  defuncta,  tenuit  ad  terminmn  vite  sue  de 
hereditate  heredum  predicti  Roberti  in  manu  domini  Regis  per  mortem 
predicte  Eue  existencium  supplicauit  domino  Regi  ut  idem  dominus  Rex 
fratrem  uxoris  dicti  Willelmi  ad  eandem  ecclesiam  presentaret,  et  negata 
sibi  presentacione  predicta,  auditoque  quod  dictus  dominus  Rex  quendam 
clericum  suum  ad  eandem  ecclesiam  presentauit,  idem  Willelmus  accedens 
ad  Adam  de  CUfton,*  imum  participum  hereditatis  predicte,  asserens  presen- 
tacionem  ecclesie  illius  ad  propartem  ipsius  Ade  pertinere  debere,  quandam 
presentacionem  a  predicto  Adam,  ac  si  pai'ticio  feodorum  et  aduocacionum 
predictorum  facta  et  aduocacio  dicte  ecclesie  eidem  Ade  in  propartem 
suam  assignata  fuissent,  cum  non  fuerint,  impetrauit,  cujus  presentacionis 
pretextu  dictus  frater  uxoris  predicti  Willelmi  ad  ecclesiam  predictam 
admissus  fuit,^  et  eandem  ecclesiam  sic  optinet,  cuius  possessionem  dic- 
tus Willelmus  postmodum  petiit  a  domino  Rege  confirmari,  et  sic  idem 
Willelmus  false  et  contra  sacramentum  *  suum  presentacionem  predicte 
ecclesie  de  predicto  Adam  pro  predicto  fratre  uxoris  eiusdem  Willelmi  ad 
excludendum  ipsum  dorninmn  Regem  de  iure  sibi  ad  predictam  ecclesiam 
presentandi  competenti  fuit  prosecutus,  in  decepcionem  et  exheredacionem 
eiusdem  domini  Regis  etc.,  dicit  quod  idem  Willelmus  non  supplicauit 
domino  Regi  de  huiusmodi  presentacione  optinenda,  set  dicit  quod  ipse, 

•  ParliaTnentary  and  Council  Proceed-  case,  Middleton  was  bent  on  the  acquisi- 

ings  (Chancerj').  file  46,  no.  25.     Besides  tion  of  property.    In  this  same  year  1353 

the  memorandum  here  printed  the  record  he  purchased  the  manor  of  Hawstead  in 

contains  a   writ  and  a   partition  of  the  Suffolk  (W.  A.  Copinger,  Manors  of  Sitf- 

property  in  question,  but  as  these  are  of  no  folk  [1905-11],  vii,  32). 

value  to  the  case  and  as  thej'  can  readily  '  The  chapter  house  of  the  Blackfriars, 

be  found  elsewhere  it  has  not  been  thought  the  most  frequent  meeting  place  of  the 

necessarj-  to  give  them  here.  council  within  the  city  of  London. 

'  Sheriff  and  cscheator  of  Norfolk  and  *  Located  in  the  hundred  of  Denton  in 

Suffolk  continuously  from  1345  to  1349,  the  southern  part  of   Norfolk,   3  J   miles 

then  after  a  year's  interim  again  from  1350  southwest  of  Bungay  and  situated  ujwn 

to  1  August,  1353  (Public  Record  Office,  a  high  hill.     It  was  a  fairly  rich  living, 

Ltste  and  Indexes,  vol.  ix).     He  was  the  worth   £24  a  year  in   the  king's  books. 

head  of  a  family  known  from  the  time  of  Blomefield,  v,  414. 

Edward    I.      Their    principal    scat    was  '  or   Tatershall,    scion   of   a    Norman 

Middleton  Hall,  an  undor-manor  or  free  baronial    family,    who    had    married    the 

tenement  in  Walshani  Hall  Norfolk,  where  aforesaid  Eva  when  l)oth  of  them   were 

William's  son  Richard  succeeded  him  (F.  children.     This  Robert  died  in  1302  and 

Blomefield,    Hint,    of   Norfolk    (1805),    v,  his  youthful  son,  the  last  of  the  male  line, 

383).    As  may  Ijc  inferred  from  the  present  died  in  1305  (Dugdale,  Baronage,  i,  440). 


REX   V.   WILLIAM    MIDDLETON 


35 


REX  V.  WILLIAM  MIDDLETON  ' 


1363       Be  it  remembered  that  William  of  Middleton,^  sheriff  and  escheator  of 

the  lord  the  kiiip;  in  tho  counties  of  Norfolk  and  Suffolk,  before  the  council 
of  the  lord  the  king,  in  a  chamber  of  the  house  of  the  friars  preachers  in 
London,'  where  the  king's  council  is  held,  having  been  arraigned  on  the 
charge  that  during  the  vacancy  of  the  church  of  Denton  ■■  in  the  diocese  of 
Norwich,  when  the  presentation  of  the  same  church  (pertained)  to  the  lord 
the  king  himself  by  reason  of  the  knights'  fiefs  and  advowsons  of  the 
churches  Avhich  Eva,  who  was  the  wife  of  Kobert  of  Tateshall  '  deceased, 
held  for  life  of  the  inheritance  of  the  heirs  of  the  aforesaid  Robert,  being  in 
the  hand  of  the  lord  the  king  by  the  death  of  the  aforesaid  Eva,  he  peti- 
tioned the  lord  the  king  to  present  to  the  same  church  the  brother  of  the 
wife  of  the  said  William,  and  when  the  aforesaid  presentation  was  denied 
him  and  when  he  had  heard  that  the  said  lord  the  king  had  presented  a 
certain  clerk  of  his  to  the  same  church,  the  same  William  went  to  Adam  of 
Chfton,*  one  of  the  parceners  of  the  aforesaid  inheritance,  and  asserting 
that  the  presentation  of  that  church  ought  to  pertain  to  the  purparty  of 
Adam  himself  he  obtained  a  certain  presentation  from  the  aforesaid  Adam, 
as  if  the  partition  of  the  aforesaid  fiefs  and  advowsons  had  been  made  and 
the  advowson  of  the  said  church  had  been  assigned  to  the  same  Adam  as 
his  purparty,  though  thej'  had  not  been;  on  the  pretext  of  which  presenta- 
tion the  said  brother  of  the  wife  of  the  aforesaid  William  was  admitted  to 
the  aforesaid  church  and  thus  he  obtained  the  same  church,'  the  possession 
of  which  the  said  William  afterwards  asked  the  king  to  confirm;  and  so  the 
same  William  falsely  and  against  his  oath  *  has  sought  the  presentation  of 
the  aforesaid  church  of  the  aforesaid  Adam  for  the  aforesaid  brother  of  the 
wife  of  the  same  William  in  order  to  exclude  the  lord  the  king  himself  from 
his  right  to  present  the  aforesaid  church  to  a  competent  person,  to  the 
deception  and  disinheritance  of  the  same  lord  the  king,  etc.;  he  says  that 
the  same  William  did  not  seek  to  obtain  from  the  lord  the  king  a  presenta- 


As  dowTy  Eva  continued  to  hold  a  life 
estate  in  various  manors  and  other  prop- 
erties, including  Denton  and  the  advow- 
son of  the  church  of  Denton.  On  her  death, 
which  occurred  in  1350,  these  estates  were 
taken  into  the  king's  hand  as  escheats  of 
an  extinct  barony  (Col.  Iiiq.  p.  7n.  ii,  1(5.5). 
They  are  yet  to  be  partitioned  among  the 
representatives  of  three  female  heirs. 

•  Son  of  Roger  of  Clifton  who  had 
made  a  fortunate  alliance  by  marrying 
Margery  Cailli  one  of  the  heirs  of  the 
Tatershall  estate,s  (Burke,  Dornmnl  and 
Extinct  Peerages  |1S83),  124;  also  Blorae- 
field,  viii,  350).  This  Adam  now  claims 
his  share  in  the  partition  of  the  estates 


left  by  Eva,  to  which  the  advowson  of  the 
church  of  Denton  belongs.  The  Cliftons 
were  greatly  strengthened  by  these  and 
other  acquisitions  made  by  Adam,  and 
his  son  John  in  1376  was  summoned  to 
parliament  as  a  baron.  Their  principal 
estate  was  PYeebridge  Hundred  (Cat.  Inq. 
p.  m.  ii,  246). 

'  This  rector  was  William  of  Panham 
"  shaveling,"  who  is  mentioned  in  the  list 
of  incumbents  as  one  presented  by  Sir 
.\dam  Clifton.  lie  was  superseded  by 
William  of  Ipswich,  a  presentee  of  the 
king.     Blomefield,  v,  411. 

'  Tlie  oath  of  an  escheator  and  like- 
wise of  a  sheriff  was  to  guard  loj'ally  the 


36  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

virtute  cuiusdam  brevas '  ipsius  domini  Regis  eidein  Willelmo  ut  escaetori 
domini  Regis  in  comitatibus  predictis  de  particione  feodoriun  et  aduoca- 
cionum  predictorum  inter  dictum  Adam  et  alios  partieipes  diete  hereditatis 
facienda  directi,  fecit  particionem  de  feodis  et  aduocacionibus  predictis 
inter  partieipes  predictos,  et  iuxta  eandein  particionem  aduocacio  predicte 
ecclesie  in  propartem  predicto  Ade  fuit  assignata,  quam  quidem  parti- 
cionem tradidit  attornatis  predictorum  participum  in  cancellariam  dicti 
domini  Regis  iuxta  tenorem  brevis  predicti  deferendam,  et,  dicta  ecclesia 
post  particionem  predictam  vacante,  predictus  Adam  fratrem  predicti 
Willelmi  ad  ecclesiam  illam  presentauit;  et  quia  postmodum  audierat  quod 
particio  predicta  in  dicta  cancellaria  non  fuit  retornata,  et  quod  nullius  esset 
valoris  antequam  in  eadem  cancellaria  admitteretur,  timens  per  hoc  dictum 
presentatum  per  prefatum  Adam  super  admissione  sua  ad  ecclesiam  pre- 
dictam impediri  posse,  Utteras  suas  misit  Petro  de  Brewes,'"  militi,  et 
lohanni  de  Herlyng,"  cum  dicto  domino  Rege  commorantibus,  ut  penes 
dominmn  Regem  pro  presentacione  hujusmodi  ab  eo  optinenda  proseque- 
rentur,  et  post  admissionera  dicti  presentati  ad  ecclesiam  illam  predictus 
Willehnus,  ipso  de  presentacione  facta  per  dictum  dominum  nostrum 
Regera  ad  eandem  ecclesiam  penitus  ignaro,  supplicauit  statum  illius  pre- 
sentati per  dictum  Adam  a  domino  Rege  confinnari,  et  non  intelligit  quod 
per  hoc  quicquam  quod  contra  sacramentuni  suum  vel  in  exheredacionem 
domini  Regis  in  hac  parte  cedere  possit  fecit  nee  attemptauit.  Et  quia,  visa 
certificacione  predicta  per  ipsum  Willelmmn  in  cancellaria  predicta  super 
particione  predicta  retornata,  non  continetur  in  eadem  dies  nee  locus 
quando  et  ubi  particio  ilia  facta  extitit,  et  cum  breve'-  de  particione  predicta 
facienda  eideni  Willelmum  directum  sit  de  data  decimi  diei  Februarii  anno 
regni  dicti  domini  Regis  AngUe  vicesimo  sexto,  idem  breve  cum  certifica- 
cione inde  facta  ante  Octabas  Sancte  Trinitatis"  anno  regni  dicti  domini 
Regis  Anglie  vicesimo  septimo  non  fuit  retornatum,  per  quod  clare  videtur 
tam  certificacionem  predictam  quam  omnia  aha  predicta  per  predictum 
Willelmum  pro  excusacione  sua  in  hac  parte  allegata  delusoria  et  minus 
vera  esse.    Et  ideo  consideratum  est  quod  predicta  certificacio  aut  particio 

rights  of  the  crown  and  not  to  assent  to  passim).    His  influence  at  court  is  seen  in 

the  decrease  or  concealment  of  the  king's  the  numerous  licenses  and  pardons  that 

rights  and  franchises,  &c.     First  Report  on  were  granted  "  at  the  request  of  I'eter  of 

the  Public  Records  (1800),  234,  236.  Brewes."    As  a  likely  means  of  gaining  the 

'  A  wTit  dated  20  June,  1350,  directed  king's  favour  Middleton  now  applies  to 

to  John  Colby  then  cscheator,   to  make  him.    He  possessed  in  Norfolk  the  manors 

the  partition  (Cal.  CI.  24  Ed.  Ill,  188)  had  of  Skeyton  and  Tharston  Hall  which  he 

evidently  not  been  executed.     The  writ  left  to  his  son  John  (Blomefield,  v,  305). 
here  mentioned  as  directed  to  Middleton  "  Another  king's  yeoman,  also  usher 

was  dated  10  Feb.   1352,  and  was  after-  of   the   king's   chamber  and   recipient  of 

wards  vacated  as  a  result  of  the  present  numberless  grants  and  favours.     In  1346 

case  (ibid.  26  Ed.  Ill,  408).  he  was  controller  of  customs  in  the  port  of 

'"  or  Breusc,  since  1345  a  king's  yeoman  Boston,  in  1348  controller  in  the  port  of 

and   a  constant  attendant  of   the  king's  Newcastle-on-Tyne,  in  1352  controller  in 

household.      He   was   liberally    rewarded  the  port  of  Lynn  and  collector  of  the  petty 

with  annuities  and  custodies   (Cal.   Pal.  customs  in  the  port  of  London.     These 


REX   V.   WILLIAM    MIDDLETON  36 

tion  of  this  kind,  but  he  says  tliat  by  virtue  of  a  certain  writ '  of  the  lord  the 
king  himself  directed  to  the  same  William  as  eschcator  of  the  lord  the  king 
in  the  aforesaid  counties,  for  making  the  partition  of  the  aforesaid  fiefs  and 
advowsons  between  the  said  Adam  and  other  parceners  of  the  said  inheri- 
tance, he  has  made  partition  of  the  aforesaid  fiefs  and  advowsons  between 
the  aforesaid  parceners,  and  according  to  the  same  partition  the  advowson 
of  the  aforesaid  church  was  assigned  as  the  purparty  of  the  aforesaid  Adam, 
which  partition  indeed  he  gave  over  to  the  attorneys  of  the  aforesaid  par- 
ceners to  be  returned  into  the  chancery  of  the  said  lord  the  king  according 
to  the  tenour  of  the  aforesaid  writ,  and,  the  said  church  being  vacant  after 
the  aforesaid  partition,  the  aforesaid  Adam  presented  the  brother  of  the 
aforesaid  William  to  that  church;  and  because  he  had  afterwards  heard 
that  the  aforesaid  partition  was  not  returned  in  the  said  chancerj',  and 
since  it  would  be  of  no  validity  until  it  was  received  in  the  same  chanceiy, 
fearing  that  on  this  account  the  said  one  presented  by  the  aforesaid  Adam 
could  be  hindered  in  his  admission  to  the  aforesaid  church,  he  sent  his 
letters  to  Peter  of  Brewes'"  knight  and  John  of  Herling,"  who  were  tarrying 
with  the  said  lord  the  king,  that  they  might  seek  with  the  lord  the  king  to 
obtain  from  liim  a  presentation  of  this  kind,  and  after  the  admission  of  the 
said  one  presented  to  that  church  the  aforesaid  William,  who  was  himself 
wholly  ignorant  of  the  presentation  made  by  our  said  lord  the  king  to  the 
same  church  petitioned  that  the  estate  of  the  one  presented  by  the  said 
Adam  be  confirmed  by  the  lord  the  king,  and  (he  says  that)  he  does  not 
know  that  in  this  he  has  done  or  attempted  anj'^thing  that  can  result  con- 
traiy  to  his  oath  or  to  the  disinheritance  of  the  lord  the  king  in  this  matter. 
And  since,  after  viewing  the  aforesaid  certification  of  the  aforesaid  parti- 
tion returned  by  the  same  William  in  the  aforesaid  chancery,  there  is  not 
contained  in  the  same  the  day  or  the  place  when  and  where  that  partition 
was  made,  and  whereas  the  writ  "  directed  to  the  same  William  for  making 
the  aforesaid  partition  is  of  the  date  10th  of  Februaiy  in  the  26th  year  of 
the  reign  of  our  said  lord  the  king  of  England,  the  same  writ  with  the  cer- 
tification then  made  was  not  returned  before  the  Octaves  of  Holj'  Trinity'* 
in  the  27th  3^ear  of  the  reign  of  our  said  lord  the  king  of  England,  by  which 
it  seems  clear  that  the  aforesaid  certification  as  well  as  all  the  other  fore- 
going things  alleged  by  the  aforesaid  W^illiam  for  his  excuse  in  this  matter 
are  delusorj'  and  not  true.    And  so  it  was  adjudged  that  the  aforesaid  cer- 

ofEces  he  was  permitted  to  discharge  by  in  1367  (ibid.  394).     He  was  the  virtual 

deputy  because  of  his  attendance  upon  founder  of   a   strong   family   in   Norfolk 

the  king  {Col.  Pal.  26  Ed.  Ill,  327,  348,  which   derived   its   name  from   Heriing's 

355,  etc.).     With  all  these  honours,  it  is  Manor  left  by  John  to  his  descendants 

curious  that  he   should  have  required  a  (Blomefield,  i,  319). 

pardon  for  a  burglary  (ibid.  34  Ed.  Ill,  "  The  wTit  is  recorded   in   the   Close 

390).      In    1360    he    was    constable    of  Roll,   but  for  the  reasons  here  given  is 

Wisbech  Castle  and  continued  in  active  marked  as  vacated.     Cat.  CI.  26  Ed.  Ill, 

service  as  usher  and  Serjeant  until  he  was  408. 

granted  an  exemption  from  pubUc  duties  "  26  May,  1353. 


37  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

in  eadem  certificacione  pretensa  facta  et  omnia  in  ea  contenta  pro  nullis 
habeantur,  et  quod  predicta  feoda  et  aduocaciones  in  manu  domini  Regis  a 
tempore  mortis  predicts  Eue  semper  remansermit  et  remanere  debent, 
quonsque  particio  inde  inter  participes  hereditatis  predicte  in  cancellaria 
predicta  fiat,  et  quod  predictus  Willelmus,  qui  a  curia  sine  licencia  recessit, 
pro  falsi tate  predicta  capiatur;  per  quod  commissio  facta  est  Thome  atte 
Ferye,  seruienti  domini  Regis  ad  arma,  ad  ipsum  Willelmima  capiendmn  et 
usque  Turrim  London'  ducendum  ibidem  in  prisona  moraturum  quousque 
Rex  aliter  ordinauerit  de  eodem,  et  amerciatus  est  ad  centum  solidos  pro 
falsa  certificacione  predicta." 

REX  V.  WILLIAM  ROUCEBY  AND  JOHN  AVENEL  ' 
A 

1354  Memorandum  quod  Willelmus  de  Rouceby  de  capcione  cuiusdam  nauis 
vocate  la  Seinte  ^larie  de  Coronade  de  lanua  et  quorundam  bononun 
et  catallormn  in  eadem  naue  inuentorimi  ad  sectam  Antonii  Compaignon,* 
mercatoris  de  lanua,'  impetitus  venit  in  Cancellariam  Regis  apud  West- 
monasterium  et  dicit  quod  nauis  predicta  venit  in  le  Trade  de  Sancto 
Mattheo  in  Britannia  et  ibidem  moram  fecit  per  tres  fluxus  et  refluxus 
maris,  et  marinarii  nauis  predicte,  non  solutis  custumis  de  mercandisis  in 
eadem  naui  existentibus  in  portu  predicto  domino  Regi  Anglie  debitis,  cum 
eadem  naue  noctanter  recesserunt,  per  quod  idem  Willelmus  ut  unus  fami- 
lianun  lohannis  Auenel,  Capitanei  et  Locum  tenentis  dicti  domini  Regis  in 
ducatu  Britannie,*  nauem  predictam  de  precepto  Thome  de  Lyndelowe, 
admiraUi  dicti  Johannis  Auenel  in  ducatu  predicto,  insecutus  eandem 
nauem  una  cum  mercandisis  predictis  tanquam  dicto  Capitaneo  ex  causa 
predicta  iuxta  consuetudinem  parcium  illarum  forisfacta  cepit  iuxta  Insu- 
1am  de  Sully  in  Cornubia,  et  do  eisdem  predicto  lohanni  Auenal  computauit 
et  sibi  de  eisdem  respondit,  per  quod  non  intendit  quod  ad  sectam  dicti 
Antonii  de  capcione  nauis  et  bonorum  et  catallorum  predictorum  debeat 
impetiri.'    Et  super  hoc  mandatmn  est  predicto  lohanni  de  essendo  coram 

"  The  Serjeant  at  arms  was  commanded  ■  Found  in  Parliamentary  and  Council 

further  to  take  all  the  lands  and  chattels  Proceedings    (Chancery),    file   47,    no.    2. 

of  Middleton  in  charge  (Cal.  CI.  28  Ed.  The  record  consists  of  3  membranes,  A, 

III,  1).    At  the  same  time  he  was  deprived  the  memorandum,  B,  the  writ  of  inquisi- 

of  office  as  sheriiT  and  escheator.     This  tion,  C,  the  certification, 

happened  apparently  at  the  end  of  July,  *  The   petition   of  Anthony   was  pre- 

for  the  next  sheriff  began  his  term  on  1  sentcd   at   some   time   between   27   Dec. 

August.    Middleton's  lands  were  restored,  1353,  the  time  of  the  capture,  and  22  Jan. 

presumably  after  fine  was  made,  by  an  order  1354,  the  date  of  a  wTit  for  the  arrest  of 

of  30  Jan.  1354,  but  he  was  never  given  the  captors.    Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  543. 

officeor  commission  under  the  cro«-n  again.  '  On  the  connection  of  the  case  with 

He  increased   his  lands  however  and   in  the  king's  policy  toward  Genoa  see  Introd. 

1362  was  member  of  parliament  for  Suf-  p.  Ixxii. 

folk  (RcXums  of  Members,  i,  171).  As  to  the  *  In  1345  Edward  III  had  received  the 

bearing  of  the  case  further  on  the  office  of  homage   of  John   of   Montfort   Duke   of 

escheator,  see  Introd.  p  Ixxi.  Brittany,  and  on  his  death  which  occurred 


REX   V.   WILLIAM    ROUCEBY    AND    JOHN    AVENEL  37 

tification  or  the  partition  made  in  the  same  pretended  certification  and  all 
things  contained  in  it  should  be  held  as  null,  and  that  the  aforesaid  fiefs  and 
advowsons  shall  continuously  remain  and  ought  to  remain  in  the  hand  of 
the  lord  the  king  from  the  time  of  the  death  of  the  aforesaid  Eva,  until  a 
partition  of  these  among  the  parceners  of  the  aforesait!  inheritance  be  made 
in  the  aforesaid  chancery,  and  that  the  aforesaid  William,  who  has  with- 
drawn from  court  without  a  license,  should  be  taken  for  the  aforesaid 
falsification;  wherefore  a  conunission  was  issued  to  Thomas  atte  Ferye, 
Serjeant  at  arms  of  the  lord  the  king,  to  take  the  said  William  and  biing 
him  to  the  Tower  of  London  there  to  stay  in  prison  until  the  king  shall 
ordain  otherwise  concerning  him,  and  he  was  amerced  in  100s.  for  the 
aforesaid  false  certification." 

REX  V.  WILLIAM  ROUCEBY  AND  JOHN  AVENEL  i 
A 
1354  Be  it  remembered  that  concerning  the  capture  of  a  certain  ship  named 
"The  Saint  Marj^  of  Coronade"  from  Genoa  and  certain  goods  and  chattels 
found  in  the  said  ship,  at  the  suit  of  Anthony  Compaignon,-  merchant  of 
Genoa,'  William  of  Rouceby  having  been  impeached  came  into  the  king's 
chancer}^  at  Westminster,  and  he  says  that  the  aforesaid  ship  came  into  The 
Race  of  St.  Matthew  in  Brittany  and  there  tarried  through  three  flows  and 
ebbs  of  the  tide,  while  the  mariners  of  the  aforesaid  ship,  having  failed  to 
pay  the  customs  due  to  the  aforesaid  lord  the  king  of  England  in  the  afore- 
said port  on  the  merchandise  carried  in  the  same  ship,  sailed  away  with  the 
same  ship  by  night,  wherefore  the  said  WilHam  as  one  of  the  retainers  of 
John  Avenel,  captain  and  lieutenant  of  the  lord  the  king  in  the  duchy  of 
Brittany,''  following  the  aforesaid  sliip  by  order  of  Thomas  of  Lyndelowe, 
admiral  of  the  said  John  Avenel  in  the  aforesaid  duchy,  captured  the  said 
ship  together  with  the  aforesaid  merchandise  near  the  Scillj^  Islands  in 
Cornwall,  (taking  these)  for  the  aforesaid  cause  as  a  prize  of  the  said  cap- 
tain's according  to  the  custom  of  those  regions,  accounting  for  the  same  to 
the  aforesaid  John  Avenel  and  answering  to  him  for  them ;  wherefore  he 
does  not  think  that  he  ought  to  be  haled  at  the  suit  of  the  said  Anthony  for 
the  capture  of  the  aforesaid  ship  and  goods  and  chattels.'  Hereupon  the 
aforesaid  John  was  commanded  to  be  before  the  king's  council  a  week  after 

shortly  afterward  assumed  the  guardian-  to  meet  with  the  refractory  captains 
ship  of  the  young  Duke  John.  To  govern  (Ibid.  R.  Ill,  i,  261).  In  November  he 
the  duchy  there  was  appointed  first  Sir  was  called  upon  to  publish  a  truce  con- 
Thomas  Dagworth  as  the  king's  captain  eluded  with  Charles  of  Blois  a  claimant 
and  lieutenant,  then  in  1350  Sir  Walter  for  the  duchy  (Ibid.  269). 
Bentley,  and  after  him  in  April,  1353,  the  '  From  the  WTit  of  22  Jan.  just  men- 
present  John  Avenel,  a  knight  of  Bedford-  tioned  we  learn  more  of  the  facts  connected 
shire  (Tout,  Pol.  Hut.,  357,  381;  Fa:-  with  the  capture.  While  in  pursuit  of  the 
dera,  R.  Ill,  i,  257;  O.  v,  687,  754).  He  Genoese  ship,  Rouceby  fell  in  with  or 
met  with  some  disobedience  in  the  duchy  picked  up  four  other  ships,  so  that  it  was 
wliich  caused  the  king  to  send  emissaries  a   fleet  of  five  ships   that  overtook   the 


38  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

consilio  Regis  in  Octabis  Sancte  Trinitatis  *  anno  regni  Regis  Edwardi  tercii 
vicesimo  octauo  ad  informandum  dictum  consilium  super  premissis.  Ad 
quern  diem  predictus  lohannes  venit  coram  consilio  et  dicit  quod  nauis 
predicta  in  portu  predicto  per  tres  fluxus  et  refluxus,  ut  premittitur,  moram 
fecit,  et  magister  et  marinarii  eiusdem  nauis  de  veniendo  ad  terram  sub 
saluo  conductu  pro  custmna  predicta  ibidem  soluenda  per  prefatum  ad- 
mirallum  ex  parte  Regis  requisiti,  promisenmt  se  in  crastinum  ad  terram 
ibidem  ad  custumam  illam  soluendam  venire  voluisse,  et  pro  eo  quod  ipsi 
nocte  subsecuta  emu  naui  predicta,  non  soluta  custuma  predicta,  recesse- 
runt,  predictus  Willelmus  ut  familiaris  predict!  lohannis  et  de  precepto 
dicti  admiralli  sui  nauem  predictam  insecutus  fuit  et  earn  cum  mercandisis 
predictis  tanquam  predicto  Capitaneo  ex  causa  predicta  forisfactam  iuxta 
Insulam  predictam  cepit  in  forma  predicta,  et  de  eisdem  naue  et  mercan- 
disis cum  prefato  lohanne  computauit,  et  eidem  lohanni  inde  plenarie 
respondit,  sicut  superius  dictum  est.  Et  predictus  Willelmus  tradiditur 
Philippo  de  Whitton^  in  baUium,  ad  habendum  ipsum  coram  consilio 
doniini  Regis,  cum  super  hoc  ex  parte  Regis  fuerit  premunitus.  Et  post- 
modum  mandatum  fuit  prefato  lohanni  per  breve  domini  Regis  quod  esset 
coram  Rege  in  cancellaria  sua  in  crastino  Ascensionis  Domini  ^  anno  regni 
dicti  domini  Regis  vicesimo  nono  ad  audienduna  indicium  suum  super 
premissis.  Qui  quidem  lohannes  in  eadem  cancellaria  apud  Westmonas- 
terium  ad  diem  predictum  comparuit,  et  lecto  et  recitato  ibidem  coram  ipso 
lohanne  processu  predicto,  in  presencia  lohannis  Ebor'  Archiepiscopi  Can- 
cellarii  ^  WiUelmi  Wynton'  Episcopi  Thesaurarii '"  ac  lusticiariorum  de 
utroque  banco  et  aliis  {sic)  de  consiUo  dicti  domini  Regis,  consideratum 
est  quod  predictus  lohannes  capiatur  et  prisone  domini  Regis  in  Turri 
London'  mittatur,  et  quod  bona  et  catalla  sua  in  manu  Regis  seisiantur 
quousque  domino  Regi  de  valore  nauis  et  bonorum  et  cataUorimi  predicto- 
rum  fuerit  responsum.  Ita  quod  denarii  de  valore  predicto  provenientes, 
si  inueniri  contigerit  nauem  et  bona  et  catalla  predicta  ex  causa  predicta 
forisfacta  fuisse,  predicto  domino  Regi  tanquam  bona  sua  propria,  eo  quod 
eadem  nauis  et  bona  in  potestate  domini  Regis  Anglie  inventa  et  capta 
fuerunt,  remaneant;  et  si  ad  sectam  predicti  mercatoris  inueniri  contigerit 
predicta  nauem,  bona  et  catalla  in  forma  predicta  forisfacta  non  fuisse, 
tunc  predicto  mercatori  de  valore  predicto  per  dictum  dominum  Regem 
respondeatur." 

[Endorsed:  — ]  Recordum  contra  Willelmum  de  Rouceby  et  lohannem 
Auenel. 

Genoese  at  the  Scilly  Islands.     First  the  fleet  were  found  and  arrested  at  Bristol. 

Englishmen    demanded    200    florins    for  Cal.  Pal.  543. 

their  release,  and  then  on  their  refusal  to  •  15  June,  1354. 

pay  boarded  the  ship  and  seized  her,  while  '  A  well  known  commissioner  in  mari- 

the  merchants  took  to  the  boats  and  es-  time  cases.     In  1346  he  was  vice-admiral 

caped  to  land.    Two  of  the  five  ships  of  the  under  the  earl  of  Arundel,  admiral  of  the 


REX   V.   WILLIAM   ROUCEBY    AND    JOHN    AVENEL  38 

Holy  Trinity,'  in  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  III, 
to  inform  the  said  council  upon  the  premises.  Upon  this  day  the  aforesaid 
John  came  before  the  council  and  said  that  the  aforesaid  ship  tarried  in  the 
aforesaid  port  thiough  three  flows  and  ebbs  of  the  tide,  as  has  been  de- 
scribed, while  the  master  and  mariners  of  the  said  ship,  having  been  re- 
quired by  the  aforesaid  admiral  in  behalf  of  the  king  to  pay  the  aforesaid 
customs  there,  on  coming  to  land  under  safe  conduct,  promised  that  they 
would  come  to  land  there  on  the  morrow  to  pay  the  custom;  and  because 
the  next  night  they  sailed  away  with  the  aforesaid  ship  without  paying  the 
aforesaid  customs,  the  aforesaid  William  as  a  retainer  of  the  aforesaid  John 
and  under  the  direction  of  his  said  admiral  pursued  the  aforesaid  ship,  and 
captured  it  near  the  aforesaid  islands  with  the  aforesaid  merchandise  as  a 
prize  of  the  aforesaid  captain's,  just  as  has  been  told,  while  for  the  said  ship 
and  merchandise  he  accounted  with  the  aforesaid  John  and  answered  for 
these  fully  to  the  said  John,  as  has  been  told  before.  And  the  aforesaid 
William  was  given  in  custody  to  Philip  of  Whitton,'  to  be  brought  before 
the  council  of  our  lord  the  king  whenever  this  should  be  required  in  behalf 
of  the  king.  And  the  aforesaid  John  was  afterwards  commanded  by  writ 
of  the  lord  the  kimg  to  be  before  the  king  in  his  chancery  on  the  morrow  of 
the  Lord's  Ascension  *  in  the  twenty-ninth  year  of  our  lord  the  king  to  hear 
his  judgment  upon  the  premises.  And  the  said  John  appeared  in  the  said 
chancery  at  Westminster  upon  the  aforesaid  day,  and  the  aforesaid  process 
having  been  read  and  rehearsed  before  John  himself,  in  the  presence  of 
John  archbishop  of  York,  chancellor,'  William  bishop  of  Winchester,  treas- 
urer,"* also  the  justices  of  both  benches  and  others  of  the  said  council,  it 
was  adjudged  that  the  aforesaid  John  should  be  taken  and  committed  to 
the  lord  the  king's  prison  in  the  Tower  of  London,  and  that  his  goods  and 
chattels  should  be  seized  into  the  king's  hand,  until  he  should  answer  to  the 
lord  the  king  for  the  aforesaid  ship  and  goods  and  chattels.  So  that  if  it 
shall  have  been  proved  that  the  aforesaid  ship  and  goods  and  chattels  for 
the  aforesaid  cause  have  been  forfeited  to  the  king  as  his  personal  property, 
on  the  ground  that  the  said  ship  and  goods  were  found  and  captured  within 
the  dominion  of  the  king  of  England,  the  money  forthcoming  from  the  afore- 
said property  shall  be  kept;  but  if  at  the  suit  of  the  aforesaid  merchant  it 
shall  have  been  proved  that  the  aforesaid  ship,  goods  and  chattels  have 
not  been  forfeited  in  the  aforesaid  manner,  then  the  said  lord  the  king  shall 
answer  to  the  aforesaid  merchant  for  the  aforesaid  value." 

[Endorsed:  — ]   Record  against  WilUam  Rouceby  and  John  Avenel. 

fleet  to  the  west  of  the  Thames  {Cal.  CI.  «  13  August,  1354. 

Rolls,  14),  in  1352  surveyor  of  the  port  of  °  John  of  Thoresby  chancellor,   1349- 

London,  in  1353  surveyor  of  the  ports  to  the  56. 

west  and  south  of  London  (Cal.  Pal.  Rolls,  '"  William  of  Edington  treasurer,  1345- 

376,  420,  425),  and  at  the  present  time,  56. 

1354,  vice-admiral  of  the  fleet  toward  the  "  On    the    outcome    of   the    case,   see 

west  under  the  earl  of  Warwick  (ibid.  521).  Introd.  p.  Ixxiii. 


39  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

B 

Edwardus,  Dei  gracia  Rex  Anglie  et  Francie  et  Dominus  Hibernie 
dilectis  et  fidelibus  suis  Andree  de  Gildeford,'^  seruienti  nostro  ad  arma, 
lohanni  de  Cobj-ndon"  maiori  ville  Bristoll',  et  lohanni  Spicer"  maiori 
stapule  eiusdem  ville,  salutem.  Ex  gravi  querela  Antonii  de  Compaignon, 
domini  cuiusdam  nauis  vocate  la  seinte  IMarie  la  Coronade,  Petri  de  Kaer- 
merdyn  de  lanua,  lohannis  Blaunk,  Petri  Euaignes  et  Petri  de  Seynches  de 
Castre  de  Ispannia,  mercatoruin,  accepiinus  quod,  cum  ipsi  dictam  nauem 
apud  la  Broage  iuxta  le  Rochel  in  Pictauia  vinis  '^  et  sale  carcassent  usque 
villam  nostram  Bristoll'  duceiidam,  ad  negociandum  inde  et  coinmodum 
suura  faciendum,  ipsique  velando  super  mare  cum  naui  predicta  versus 
dictam  villam  Bristoll'  sub  saluo  conductu  et  proteccione  nostris  in  comi- 
tiua  cuiusdam  flote  nauium  vinis  carcatarum  apud  la  Sorlyng  in  Cornubia 
pacifice  extitissent,  superuenerunt  quidam  malefactores  de  flota  predicta 
ex  parte  magistrorum  et  marinariorum  nauium  flote  predicte  missi  in  quin- 
que  nauibus,  et  dictam  nauem  vocatam  la  Seinte  Marie,  pro  eo  quod  dicti 
mercatores  predictis  magistris  et  marinariis  flote  illius  ducentos  florinos  de 
scuto,''  quos  ab  eisdem  mercatoribus  ad  opus  predictorum  magistrorum  et 
marinariorum  eiusdem  flote  pro  naui  et  mercandisis  predictis  saluandis 
iniuste,  cum  sub  proteccione  nostra  et  non  in  aliquo  periculo  fuissent,  exige- 
bant,  soluere  recusarunt,  vi  armata  noctanter  intrauerunt  et  ipsis  merca- 
toribus ad  terram  in  batellis  pro  timore  mortis  fugientibus  nauem  illam 
cum  bonis  et  mercandisis  in  ea  existentibus  ceperunt  et  abduxerunt,  in 
nostri  contemptu  et  predictorum  mercatorum  grauem  depressionem,  ac 
contra  conductum  et  proteccionem  nostros  predictos.  Super  quo  suppli- 
carunt  sibi  per  nos  remedium  adliiberi.  Nos  ut  prefatis  mercatoribus 
extraneis  super  recuperacione  nauis  et  bonorum  suorum  predictorum  cicius 
subueniatur,  et  ut  ipsi  ad  veniendum  in  dictum  regnum  nostrum  Anglie 
cum  mercandisis  suis  animos  habeant  promptiores,  et  eo  maxime  quo  pro- 
teccione et  saluo  conductu  nostris  sint  muniti,  et  eciam  in  ordinacione"  per 

"  Gildford  or  Guldford,  king's  yeoman,  office.     It  was  the  revolutionarj-  govern- 

was  appointed  Serjeant  at  arms  in  1347,  ment    that    received    the    present    writ, 

and  was  then  sent  to  Ireland  to  serve  as  Soon  tliere  was  a  reversal  and  a  royal 

the  king's  purveyor  {Cal.  CI.  21  Ed.  Ill,  commission    of   oyer   and    terminer    was 

313;  24  Ed.  Ill,  16.5).    He  was  one  of  the  issued  to  deal  with  the  rioters.    Cobyng- 

two    commissioners    appointed    22    Jan.  ton  was  accused  by  his  enemies  of  being 

1354  to  arrest  the  captors  of  the  Genoese  "  a  seller  of  victuals   wholesale  and  retail 

ship,  and  bring  them  before  the  council  contrarj'  to  the  statute  thereof."    In  1355 

(Cal.  Fat.  543).    In  1356  he  was  sent  out  he  was  again  in  honour,  being  appointed 

to  see  to  the  munition  of  Calais   (Ibid.  by  the  king  one  of  the  surveyors  of  the 

374).  port  of  Bristol.    Cal.  Pat.  Rold,  00,  262. 

"  One  of  the  common  council  of  Bristol  '*  Also  called  John  Goterest,  mayor  in 

in  1349  (F.  B.  Bickley,  Link  lied  Hook  of  1349  and  again  in  1351   (Bickley,  i,  20), 

liristol  [1900],  i,  5).     Early  in   the  year  and  collector  of  the  tenth  and  fiftoentli  in 

1354  he  appears  at  the  head  of  a  faction  in  Bristol  and  Gloucestershire  in  13.50  (Cal. 

the  town  that  made  an  uprising  against  CI.    Rolls,    184).      He   was   conspicuously 

Richard  le  Spicer  then  mayor  and  com-  involved  in  the  conspiracy  against  Richard 

pelled   him   under   duress   to   resign   his  le  Spicer  just  told,  and  was  indicted  at 


REX  V.  WILLIAM   ROUCEBY   AND   JOHN   AVENEL  39 

B 

Edward,  by  the  grace  of  God  king  of  England  and  France  and  lord 
of  Ireland,  to  his  beloved  and  faithful  Andrew  of  Guildford,"  our  serjeant  at 
anus,  John  of  Cobyngdon,"  mayor  of  the  town  of  Bristol,  and  John  Spicer,'* 
mayor  of  the  staple  of  the  said  town,  greeting.  From  the  grave  complaint 
of  Anthony  de  Compaignon,  owner  of  a  certain  ship  called  "  la  Seinte  Marie 
de  Coronadc,"  Peter  de  Kaemierdyn  of  Genoa,  John  Blaunk,  Peter  Evaignes 
and  Peter  de  Seynches  of  Castro  in  Spain,  merchants,  we  have  learned 
that  when  they  had  loaded  the  said  ship  at  la  Broage  near  la  Rochelle  in 
Poictou  with  wine"  and  salt  to  cany  to  our  town  of  Bristol,  for  the  purpose 
of  trading  there  and  pursuing  their  business,  and  while  thej-  were  sailing 
upon  the  sea  with  the  aforesaid  ship  towards  the  said  town  of  Bristol  under 
our  safe-conduct  and  protection,  and  while  in  company  with  a  certain  fleet 
of  ships  loaded  with  wine  they  were  lying  peacefully  at  the  Scilly  Islands  in 
Cornwall,  there  came  upon  them  certain  malefactors  of  the  aforesaid  fleet 
who  had  been  sent  in  five  sliips  in  behalf  of  the  masters  and  mariners  of  the 
ships  of  the  aforesaid  fleet,  and  because  the  said  merchants,  since  they  were 
under  our  protection  and  not  in  any  peril,  refused  to  pay  the  aforesaid 
masters  and  mariners  of  the  fleet  two  himdred  florins  of  the  shield,'^  which 
for  the  salvage  of  the  said  ship  and  merchandise  were  unjustly  exacted  of 
the  said  merchants  for  the  profit  of  the  aforesaid  masters  and  mariners  of 
the  said  fleet,  boarding  by  night  with  amied  force  the  said  ship  named  the 
"  Seinte  Marie,"  wliile  the  merchants  themselves  escaped  to  land  in  boats 
for  fear  of  their  lives,  (the  malefactors)  captured  and  sailed  away  with  the 
ship  together  with  the  goods  and  merchandise  borne  in  her,  in  contempt  of 
us,  to  the  grave  loss  of  the  aforesaid  merchants  and  contrary  to  our  afore- 
said safe-conduct  and  protection.  'WTiereupon  they  supphcate  that 
remedy  maj-  be  aflforded  them  bj'  us.  In  order  that  aid  may  be  quickly 
coming  to  the  aforesaid  foreign  merchants  for  the  recovery  of  their  aforesaid 
ship  and  goods,  and  in  order  that  they  may  have  the  more  ready  disposi- 
tions to  come  to  our  said  realm  of  England  with  their  merchandise,  and 
that  they  may  be  defended  to  the  utmost  by  our  protection  and  safe- 
conduct,  and  also  since  it  is  contained  in  the  ordinance  "  recently  made  by 

the  time  for  having  taken  £400  out  of  the  '*  The  florin,  first  struck  by  Edward 
revenues  which  rightfully  belonged  to  the  III  in  1343,  marks  the  beginning  of  a  per- 
king. But  he  was  pardoned  of  everj-  manent  gold  coinage  in  England.  The 
charge  (Cat.  Pal.  Rolls,  180).  The  staple  coin  was  worth  about  6s.  The  florin  with 
of  Bristol  of  which  he  was  mayor  has  not  the  shield  here  mentioned  presented  on 
been  noticed  in  the  local  histories  until  a  the  obverse  side  the  figure  of  the  king 
much  later  time.  seated  on  a  throne  holding  in  his  right 
"  The  wine  trade  had  been  specially  fav-  hand  a  sword  and  in  his  left  a  shield  quar- 
ouredin  the8tatute27Ed.  III,st.  1,  C.6,  to  tered  with  the  arms  of  France.  H.  A. 
the  effect  that  all  merchants  may  bring  their  Grueber,  Handbook  of  Coins  in  the  British 
wines  safely  into  England  to  what  port  shall  Museum  (1899),  47,  50. 
please  them, soalways  thattheking'sbutler  "  Ordinance  of  the  Staple  27  Ed.  Ill, 
may  make  purveyance  of  wine,  making  pay-  c.  2;  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  i,  333. 
ment  therefor  within  forty  days. 


40  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

nos  et  consilium  nostrum  iam  nouiter  facta  contineatur  quod  mercatoribus 
extraneis  cum  bonis  et  mercandisis  suis  infra  dictum  regnum  nostrum 
Anglie  venientibus  super  iniuriis  et  grauaminibus  eis  illatis  celeris  iusticia 
exhibeatur,  volentes  de  nominibus  malefactorum  predictorum,  qui  dictam 
nauem  cum  bonis  et  mercimoniis  predictis  sic  carcatam  ceperunt  et  ab- 
duxerunt,  ac  de  vero  valore  nauis,  bononim  et  mercimoniorum  eorundem, 
necnon  de  dampnis  per  eosdem  mercatores  in  hac  parte  passis  pleniua 
certiorari,  assignauimus  vos  et  duos  vestrum  ad  inquirendum  per  sacra- 
mentum  probonmi  et  legalium  hominum  de  comitatibus  Glouc'  et  Somer- 
set, tarn  infra  libertates  quam  extra,  per  quos  rei  Veritas  melius  sciri  poterit, 
de  premissis  et  ea  contingentibus  plenius  veritatem.  Et  ideo  vobis  man- 
damus quod  ad  certos  dies  et  loca,  quos  vos  vel  duo  vestrum  ad  hoc  proui- 
deritis,  inquisiciones  super  premissis  in  forma  predicta  faciatis,  et  eas 
distincte  et  aperte  factas  nobis  in  cancellariam  nostram  sub  sigillis  vestris 
vel  duorum  vestrum  et  sigillis  eorum  per  quos  facte  fuerint  sine  dilacione 
mittatis  et  hoc  breve.  Damus  autem  vicecomitibus  nostris  comitatumn 
predictorum  et  omnibus  balliuis,  ministris  et  fidelibus  nostris,  tam  infra 
libertates  quam  extra,  tenore  presencium  in  mandatis  quod  vobis  et  duobus 
vestrum  in  premissis  faciendis  et  exequendis  pareant  et  intendant,  et  eis- 
dem  vicecomitibus  quod  ipsi  ad  certos  dies  et  loca,  quos  vos  vel  duo  ves- 
trum eis  scire  faciatis,  venire  faciant  coram  vobis  vel  duobus  vestrum  tot 
et  tales  probos  et  legales  homines  de  balliuis  suis,  tam  infra  libertates  quam 
extra,  per  quos  rei  Veritas  in  premissis  melius  sciri  poterit  et  inquiri."  In 
cuius  rei  testimoniimi  has  htteras  nostras  fieri  fecimus  patentes.  Teste 
me  ipso  apud  Westmonasterium  xv.  die  Februarii  anno  regni  nostri  Anglie 
vicesimo  oetauo  regni  vero  nostri  Francie  quintodecuno.     IVIirf[eld]." 

C 

Inquisicio  capta  in  comitatu  Glouc'  coram  Andrea  de  Gyldeford',  seru- 
iente  domini  Regis  ad  arma,  lohanne  de  Cobyndon',  maiore  ville  Bristoll', 
et  lohanne  le  Spicer,  maiore  de  stapula  eiusdem  ville,  apud  Bristoll'  die 
Mercurii  proxima  post  festum  Sancti  Petri  in  Cathedra'"  anno  regni  regis 
Edwardi  tercii  post  conquestum  vicesimo  oetauo,  pretcxtu  cuiusdam  man- 
dati  eis  inde  directi  per  sacramentum  Roberti  atte  Walle,^'  Thome  Pj'ke, 
Sj^nonis  Gyene,  lohannis  Lyndraper,  Roberti  Haleweye,  Ricardi  Howyn, 
Willelmi  atte  Berghe,  Roberti  Honybourne,  mercatorum  ville  Bristoll', 
lohannis  Eustace,  Walteri  Galyot,  lohannis  Sporyar,  lohannis  Torj'ton, 
marinariorum,  qui  dicunt  super  sacramentum  suum  quod  die  Veneris  in 
festo  Sancti  lohannis  Euangeliste"  anno  regni  Regis  supradicte  vicesimo 
septimo,  Willehuus  de  Rouceby,  dominus  nauis  sui  proprii,  cuius  nomen 

"  A  writ  venire  facias.  church  of  Rawreth,  dio.  London.   Cal.  Pat. 

'•  Signature  of  the  clerk,  probably  Wil-  liolU,  27  Edw.  Ill,  483;  28  Edw.  Ill,  14. 

liam  of  Mirfeld,  a  king's  cI<Tk,  known  as  "23  Feb.  1354. 

parBOPofGimingham,  dio.  Norwich,  rector  "  One  of  the  common  council  in  1349. 

of  Shipden  in  Norfolk,  presentee  to  the  Bickley,  i,  20. 


REX   V.   WILLIAM   ROUCEBY   AND   JOHN   AVENEL  40 

US  and  our  coiiiicil  that  speedy  justice  sliall  be  afforded  foreiRn  merchants 
coming  within  our  said  realm  of  England  for  the  injuries  and  hardships 
inflicted  upon  them;  desiring  to  be  more  fully  certified  of  the  names  of  the 
aforesaid  malefactors,  who  have  captured  and  carried  off  the  said  ship 
loaded  with  the  aforesaid  goods  and  merchandise,  and  also  (to  be  informed) 
of  the  true  value  of  the  said  ship,  goods  and  merchandise,  as  well  as  of  the 
damages  suffered  by  the  said  merchants  in  this  affair,  we  have  assigned  you, 
or  two  of  you,  to  inquire  by  oath  of  prudent  and  lawful  men  of  the  counties 
of  Gloucester  and  Somerset,  whether  within  liberties  or  without,  by  whom 
the  truth  of  the  matter  maj'  be  best  known,  (ascertaining)  more  fully  the 
truth  in  the  premises  and  things  relating  thereto.  And  so  we  command 
you  that  on  certain  days  and  in  certain  places,  which  you  or  two  of  you 
shall  appoint  for  the  purpose,  you  make  inquisitions  touching  the  premises 
in  the  aforesaid  manner,  and  after  these  (instruments)  have  been  distinctly 
and  publicly  drawn  up  do  you  send  them  without  delay  together  with  this 
writ  into  our  chancery  under  the  seals  of  yourselves  or  two  of  you  and  the 
seals  of  those  bj'  whom  (the  inquisitions)  have  been  made.  Moreover  we 
are  commanding  our  sheriffs  of  the  aforesaid  counties  and  all  bailiffs, 
ministers  and  subjects  of  ours,  whether  w-ithin  liberties  or  without,  after 
the  tenour  of  these  (letters)  that  they  shall  obey  and  attend  you,  or  two 
of  you,  in  performing  and  carrying  out  the  foregoing  orders,  and  (we  are 
sending  to)  the  said  sheiiffs  that  at  the  certain  days  and  places,  which  you 
or  two  of  you  shall  make  known  to  them,  they  shall  require  to  come  before 
you  or  two  of  you,  such  prudent  and  lawful  men  of  their  bailiwicks,  whether 
within  liberties  or  without,  as  many  as  may  be  necessary  to  have  the  truth 
of  the  matter  better  known  and  inquired  into."  In  testimony  of  this  thing 
we  have  had  these  our  letters  patent  issued.  Witness  myself  at  West- 
minster the  15th  day  of  February  in  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  our  reign  in 
England  but  of  our  reign  in  France  fifteenth.    Mirfeld." 

C 

Inquisition  taken  in  the  county  of  Gloucester  before  Andrew  of  Guild- 
ford, Serjeant  at  arms  of  the  lord  the  king,  John  of  Cobjmgdon,  mayor  of 
the  town  of  Bristol,  John  le  Spicer,  maj'or  of  the  staple  of  the  same  town, 
at  Bristol  on  the  Wednesday  following  the  feast  of  St.  Peter  in  Cathedra,* 
in  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  the  Third,  by  virtue 
of  a  certain  commission  assigned  to  them.  By  oath  of  Robert  atte  Walle,^* 
Thomas  Pyke,  Simon  Gyene,  John  Lyndraper,  Robert  Haleweye,  Richard 
Howyn,  William  atte  Berghe,  Robert  Honybourne,  merchants  of  the  town 
of  Bristol,  John  Eustace,  Walter  Galyot,  John  Sporj^ar,  John  Toryton, 
mariners,  who  declare  upon  their  oath  that  on  Friday  the  feast  of  St.  John 
the  evangelist,-  in  the  aforesaid  twenty-seventh  year  of  the  king's  reign, 
William  Rouceby,  owner  of  his  ship,  the  name  of  which  is  not  known  to  the 

«  27  Dec.  1353. 


41  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

dictis  iuratis  ignoratur,  Edwardus  Deoffe  de  Fowy,  magister  eiusdem  nauis, 
Ricardus  de  Gourney  de  Harpetre,  lohannes  Koc,  lohannes  Tyr  de  Polrwan, 
Willelmus  de  Lough  ton,  Robertus  Chaumberleyn  et  Thomas  Priour,  soudarii 
de  Britannia,  et  alii  malefactores,  quorum  nomina  dictis  iuratis  ignorantur, 
vi  et  arniis  noctanter  apud  Sylly  intrauerunt  quandam  nauem  vocatam 
SejTite  Marie  de  Coronade,  que  fuit  Antonii  de  Compaignoun,  domini 
eiusdem  nauis,  et  ahorum  mercatorum  prout  in  dicta  commissione  plenius 
apparet,  et  predictam  nauem  cum  diuersis  mercandisis  in  ea  existentibus 
ad  valenciam  centum  et  viginti  Ubrarum  in  eadem  inuentis  ceperunt, 
abduxerunt  et  asportauerunt.  In  quorum  premissorum  testimonium  pre- 
dicti  maiores  et  duodecim  iurati  presentibus  sigilla  sua  apposuerunt. 

THE  ABBOT  AND  CONVENT  OF  BURTON-ON-TRENT  v.  MEYNELL  * 

c.  1355  A  lour  tresexcellent  et  tresnoble  seignur  le  Roi  prient  ses  poueres  chapel- 
leins,  labbe  et  le  couent  de  Burton  sur  Trente,^  qest  de  vostre  patronage  et 
funde  en  pure  et  perpetuel  aumoigne  a  prier  pour  vous  et  voz  auncestres 
continuelment,  qe  come,  tresexcellent  seignur,  de  vostre  grace  especiale  eit 
grante  as  ditz  abbe  et  couent  un  oier  et  terminer'  as  certeins  Justices 
deuers  Monsieur  WilUam  de  Menjdl,''  chiualer,  et  autres  meffesours  sur 
diuerses  felonies,  trespas  et  autres  outrages,  queux  ils  ount  fet  deuers  le 
ditz  abbe  et  couent  et  lour  seruantz,^  et  ore  le  dit  Monsieur  William  tient 
les  ditz  abbe  et  couent  et  lour  seruantz  si  estroit  qe  nul  de  eux  nose  passer 
nuUe  part  hors  de  la  dite  [abbeye]  de  Burton,  et  outre  les  manace  qe  a 
plus  tost  qils  comencerent  [sic]  ascune  suite  deuers  lui  qil  fra  ardre  la  dite 
abbeie  et  touz  les  manoirs  appurteuantz  a  ycelle,  et  ad  vendu  touz  ses  terres 
et  tenementz  qil  auoit  pour  faire  un  sodeyn  mal  al  dite  abbeye  et  passer 
aillours  en  autri  pais,  issint  qils  nosent  pursuir  le  dit  oier  et  terminer  pour 
doute  de  destruccion  de  la  dite  Abbeye,^  qil  vous  pleise  pour  lamour  de  Dieu 
et  en  oeiu-e  de  charite  et  en  saluacion  de  la  dite  abbeie  graunter  commission 

'  Ancient  Petitions,  no.  12298.     No  en-  '  Menil  or  Meynell,  a  family  of  Derby- 

dorsement.  shire  and  Staffordshire,  knon-n  from  the 

'  A   Benedictine    monastery    in    Staf-  time  of  Henry  II  (J.  Tilly,  Halls,  Manors, 

fordshire,  founded  in  Saxon  times,  with  and  Families  of  Derbyshire,  ii,  214).  Their 

charters  from  the  time  of  King  Eadred  principal   seat   was   Meynell   Langley   in 

(DugfisAe,  Monaslicon,  ui,  32  !.).    None  of  Derbyshire.    This  William  was  a  younger 

the  charters  however  in  Dugdale  mention  son  of  Hugh  a  lieutenant  of  Edward  III, 

pure  and  perpetual  almoign,  as  is  here  and  is  mentioned  as  serving  in  the  retinue 

stated.  of  Henry  Duke  of  Lancaster  in  1348^9 

'  There  were  two  commissions  of  oyer  and  again  in  1356-57.     He  claimed  to  be 

and  terminer;  the  first  dated  12  Dec.  1354,  the  heir  of  his  brother  Richard  in  1365-66 

{Cat.  Pat.  28  Ed.  Ill,  164)  and  the  second  (Wm  Salt  Arch.  Soc.  xii,  142;  xiii,  48;  xviii, 

1   Feb.    1355.     (Ibid.  29  Ed.  Ill,   229.)  128.) 

There  is  no  date  to  the  present  petition  '  In  the  commission  of  12  Dec.  it  is 
but  in  the  order  of  events  it  seems  to  follow  stated  more  particularly  that  Meynell  and 
the  first  commission,  which  is  here  com-  his  confederates  came  to  the  abbey,  as- 
plained  of,  and  to  be  followed  by  the  saulted  the  abbot's  men  and  servants,  and 
second.  would  have  burned  down  the  building  if 


ABBOT  AND  CONVENT  OF  BURTON-ON-TRENT  V.   MEYNELL  41 

said  jurors,  Edward  Deoffe  of  Fow.y,  mastc>r  of  tlio  same  ship,  Richard 
Gourney  de  Harpetre,  John  Koc,  John  Tyc  of  Polcwain,  William  of 
Loughton,  Robert  Chaumberleyn,  and  Thomas  Priour,  soldiers  of  Brit- 
tany, and  other  malefactors,  whose  names  are  not  known  to  the  said  jurors, 
with  armed  force  by  night  at  Scilly  boarded  a  certain  ship  named  the 
"  Seinte  Marie  of  Coronade,"  which  belonged  to  Anthony  Compaignoun 
owner  of  the  said  ship  and  other  merchants,  as  more  fuilj^  appears  in  the 
said  commission ;  and  the  aforesaid  ship  together  with  diverse  merchandise 
carried  in  it  to  the  value,  it  is  found,  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  pounds, 
they  captured,  confiscated,  and  bore  away.  In  testimony  of  the  premises 
the  aforesaid  mayors  and  twelve  jurors  have  affixed  their  seals  to  this 
(instrument). 

THE  ABBOT  AND  CONVENT  OF  BURTON-ON-TRENT  v.  MEYNELL ' 

c.  1355  To  their  very  excellent  and  very  noble  lord  the  king  pray  his  poor  chap- 
lains the  abbot  and  convent  of  Burton-on-Trent,^  which  is  of  your  patronage 
and  foundation  in  pure  and  perpetual  almoign  to  pray  continually  for  you 
and  your  ancestors,  that  since,  very  excellent  lord,  of  your  special  grace 
there  has  been  granted  to  the  said  abbot  and  convent  an  oyer  and  terminer' 
to  certain  justices  against  Sir  William  Meynell,^  knight,  and  other  mal- 
feasors  with  regard  to  certain  diverse  felonies,  trespass  and  other  outrages 
which  they  have  committed  against  the  said  abbot  and  convent  and  their 
servants;*  and  now  the  said  Sir  William  holds  the  said  abbot  and  convent 
so  straitl}'  that  none  of  them  dares  in  any  way  to  pass  out  of  the  said 
(abbey)  of  Burton ;  moreover  he  threatens  them  that  as  soon  as  they  com- 
mence any  suit  against  him  he  will  burn  down  the  said  abbey  and  all  the 
manors  pertaining  to  it;  and  he  has  sold  all  the  lands  and  tenements  that 
he  had  in  order  to  do  sudden  harm  to  the  said  abbey,  and  (then)  pass 
over  into  another  county,  so  that  they  do  not  dare  to  pursue  the  said  oyer 
and  terminer  for  fear  of  the  destruction  of  the  said  abbey ;  *  may  it  please 
you  for  the  love  of  God  and  in  way  of  charity  and  for  the  salvation  of  the 
said  abbey  to  grant  by  writ  commission  to  some  valiant  man  to  seize  the 

they  had   not  been  prevented.     Thence  his  men  do  not  dare  to  go  forth  to  survey 

they  went  by  night  to  the  abbot's  town  their  lands,  nor  the  men  and  servants  to 

of  Branston,  broke  into  his  houses  there,  till  their  lands  or  do  other  service  for  the 

dragged  his  men  and  servants  from  their  abbot,  who  has  thus  lost  the  profit  of  his 

beds  and  beat  them.    And  then  they  went  lands  and  the  service  of  his  men  for  some 

to   the  abbot's   grange  of    Shobnall,   as-  time. 

saulted  his  men  there  and  compelled  them  ^  In  the  second  commission  of  1  Feb. 

to  swear  to  serve  the  abbot  no  longer.  it  is  stated  that  Meynell  made  an  attack 

And  when  the  said  William  was  required  on  the  abbot's  manor  of  Hanson  in  Derby, 

by  some  of  the  knights  of  the  neighborhood  broke  the  close  and  houses  there,  drove  off 

to  desist,  he  swore  that  he  would  do  worse  260  sheep,  assaulted  his  men  and  servants 

evils  so  far  as  he  could  until  he  should  have  and  compelled  them  to  swear  that  they 

fulfilled  his  will.    So  that  the  abbot  and  would  no  longer  serve  the  abbot. 


42  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

en  brief  a  ascun  certein  vaillant  homme  de  prendre  le  dit  Monsieur  William 
par  son  corps,  et  del  amener  deuant  vous  et  vostre  conseil  ^  a  respondre  des 
felonies  et  trespas  auandites,  qar  sil  ne  soit  restreint  de  sa  malice  il  destru- 
era  la  dite  abbeie  pour  touz  jours  et  tut  le  pais  enuiroun. 

LOMBARDS  v.  THE  MERCERS'  COMPANY ' 

Ceux  sont  qi  fesoient  faire  le  raal  dont  le  dit  William  Coue 


^_.,,.       ^         y  feust  mis  en  la  Tour  de  Londres  et  illoeqes  demora  pur 
William  Coue  ^  .    ^  ^      ■    ■•,  r      ^  ■,  .      . 

J  un  certem  temps  et  puis  il  feust  lessez  par  mempnse. 

Geoffroi  Bernham  vallet  a  Henri  Coue  est  celui  qi  amena  la  compaignie 

souz  escripte  a  faire  le  dit  mal. 

Thomas  Maldone  est  celui  qi  feust  pris  et  amenez  deuant  le  conseil  nostre 

seignur  le  Roi  e  illoeqes  il  conoist  qil  feust  un  de  eux  qi  fesoient  le  dit  mal  e 

qe  le  dit  Geffrei  feust  lour  duyttour  a  ceo  faire,  dont  le  dit  Thomas  feust  mis 

a  la  Tour  e  puis  lesse  par  meinprise. 

WilHam  de  Wodeford 

Thomas  Euerard  I  Ceux  sont  les  persones  qi  fesoient  le  dit  mal  nient 

Adam  Wroxham  [  prises  mes  fuez  e  puis  lessez  par  meinprise. 

Henri  Forester 

Sur  quel  prions  qe  pleise  a  nostre  tresredoute  seignur  le  Roi  e  son  bon 

conseil  denuoier  pur  les  persones  auantdites,  et  tiele  chastisement  a  eux 

ordiner  qe  desore  ne  soient  si  hardiz  de  nous  faire  ne  procurer  plus  de  mal 

ne  moleste  par  nulle  voie  de  maUce  ou  denuie  qar  autrement  il  sont  en 

purpos  e  ferront  en  certein  bien  temprement  plus  pis  qe  unqes  ne  ont  fait 

pardeuant. 

Item  qe  pleise  a  nostre  tresredoute  seignur  le  Roi  e  son  conseil  de  faire 

venir  deuant  sa  persone  propre  les  Mestres  e  les  plus  grantz  del  mestier  e  de 

prendre  de  eux  sibone  e  sufficiante  seurtee  qe  james  ils  ne  facent  a  nous  nul 

mal  ne  vileinie  ne  soeffrent  estre  a  nous  fait  par  lour  assent  en  manere  come 

desus  est  dit,  ou  autrement  ne  purrons  viure  ne  demourer  en  pees  e  meement 

si  nostre  seignur  le  Roi  soit  hors  Dengleterre. 

Les  noms  des  Mercers  de  Londres: 

Johan  Bernes  visconte  de  Londres       Johan  Redjmg 

Simon  Worstede  Alderman  Adam  Euerard  (nichil  habet  ubi 

William  Todenham  potest  premuniri) 

Johan  Worstede  Wauter  Bret 

Alcin  Euerard  Nichol  Bcdyngton  (mortuus  est) 

Johan  de  Stapele  Johan  Elesdon 

Wauter  Berneye  Nichol  Plunket 

Johan  Wychyngham  Henri  Coue 

Thomas  Starkol  William  Coue 

'  On  the  significance  of  this  prayer  see  '  ParUamenlary  and  Council  Proceed- 

Introd.  p.  Ixxiv.  inga  (Chancery),  file  8,  no.  3. 


LOMBARDS   V.   THE    MERCERS'    COMPANY  42 

body  of  the  said  Sir  William,  to  brinR  him  before  you  and  your  council  ^ 
to  answer  for  the  aforesaid  felonies  and  trespass,  for  if  he  is  not  restrained 
from  his  malice  he  will  destroy  for  ever  the  said  abbey  and  all  the  country 
around. 

LOMBARDS  v.  THE  MERCERS'  COMPANY' 
A 
1359  I  These  are  they  who  caused  the  evil  to  be  done  for  which 

Henry  Cove      I  William  was  put  in  the  Tower  of  London  and  there  re- 
William  Cove    I  mained  for  a  certain  tune  and  then  he  was  released  by 
mainprise. 
Geoffrey  Bernham  servant  to  Henry  Cove  is  he  who  led  the  under- 
written company  to  commit  the  said  evil. 

Thomas  Maldon  is  he  who  was  taken  and  brought  before  the  council  of 
our  lord  the  King  and  there  he  acknowledged  that  he  was  one  of  those  who 
did  the  said  evil  and  that  the  said  Geoffrey  was  their  leader  in  doing  that  for 
which  the  said  Thomas  was  put  in  the  Tower  and  then  released  by  main- 
prise. 

_,,  „         J  These  are  the  persons  who  did  the  said  evil.    They 

.  ,       „,      ,  >  were  not  taken  but  driven  off  and  then  released  by 

Adam  Wroxham 

TT  T^       i.  mamprise. 

Henry  l<orester  J 

Whereupon  we  pray  that  it  may  please  our  very  dread  lord  the  king  and 

his  good  council  to  send  for  the  persons  aforesaid  and  to  ordain  them  such 

chastisement  as  that  henceforth  they  may  not  be  so  bold  to  do  or  procure 

further  evil  against  us  nor  to  molest  us  by  any  way  of  malice  or  envy  for 

otherwise  they  are  purposed  and  will  do  very  shortly  much  worse  than  ever 

they  have  done  before. 

Also  that  it  may  please  our  very  dread  lord  the  king  and  his  council  to 

cause  to  come  before  him  sitting  in  person  the  Masters  and  the  chiefs  of  the 

mistery  and  to  take  of  them  such  good  and  sufficient  surety  that  they  may 

never  do  us  any  evil  or  villany  nor  suffer  it  to  be  done  to  us  by  their  assent 

in  manner  as  is  aforesaid,  or  otherwise  we  shall  not  be  able  to  live  nor  dwell 

in  peace  and  especially  if  our  lord  the  king  be  out  of  England. 

The  names  of  the  Mercers  of  London : 

John  Bures  sheriff  of  London  Adam  Everard   (has  no  means 

Simon  Worsted  Alderman  against  which  to  proceed  by 

William  Totenham  premunire) 

John  Worsted  Walter  Bret 

Alain  Everard  Nicholas  Beddington  (dead) 

John  Stapeley  John  Elesdon 

Walter  Berneye  Nicholas  Plunket 

John  Wichingham  Henry  Cove 

Thomas  Starkol  William  Cove 

John  Reading 


43 


CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 


B 

Edwardus  dei  gracia  Rex  Anglie  et  Francie  ^  et  Dominus  Hibernie 
vicecomitibus  London,'  salutem.  Quibusdam  certis  de  ca[usis  tibi  pre- 
cipimus]  firmiter  injungentes  quod  premunire  faciatis*  Henricum  Coue,° 
Willelmum  Coue,^  Galfriduni  Bernhain,'  Thomam  Mouldone,^  Willelmum 
[Wodeford],'  Thomam  Euerard/"  Adam  Wroksham/^  Henricmn  Forester/^ 
Johannem  Berne,"  Simonem  Worstede,"  Willelmum  Totenham,''  Johan- 
nem  Worstede/*  Alanum  Euerard,''  Johannem  de  Stapele,**  Walterum 


2  After  1340. 

'  John  Barnes  or  Byernes  and  John 
Bures,  sheriffs  1358-59,  mentioned  below. 
The  sheriffs  were  elected  on  St.  Matthew's 
Day  (21  September)  and  came  into  ofifice 
on  Michaelmas  Eve  (28  September). 
Liher  Alhus,  pp.  43,  45. 

*  The  following  writ  of  premunire  is 
given  in  Palgrave,  Ori^nal  Authority  of 
the  King's  Council  (1834),  p.  131.  See  also 
Select  Cases  in  Chancery  (Selden  Sec. 
1896),  p.  xiv. 

'  Henry  Cove,  citizen  and  mercer  of 
London,  appears  as  Henry  de  Cove  as  a 
witness  to  a  mercer's  will  in  1355  (Cal. 
Close  Rolls,  p.  207).  He  is  mentioned  as  a 
plaintiff  in  a  case  against  a  debtor  on  4 
July,  1358  {Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  p.  83),  and  in 
another  simOar  case  on  11  Feb.  1359  (ib.  p. 
167).  He  procured  the  release  of  Thomas 
Everard  (n.  10,  infra)  and  the  arrest  of 
Sharpeivham,  the  latter  also  a  mercer,  it  is 
not  clear  on  what  grounds.  See  Introd.  pp. 
Ixxix-lxxx,  supra.  Henr3'  Cove's  name  is 
on  the  list  of  leading  mercers. 

'  William  Cove  of  London  "  on  1  Decem- 
ber, 1357,  mainperned  before  the  king's 
councU  for  Thomas  of  Maldon  of  London 
to  answer  for  certain  trespasses  committed 
in  that  city  upon  certain  merchants  of 
Lombardy  with  which  he  is  charged " 
(Cal.  Close  Rolls,  p.  432).  The  list  of  six 
mainpernors  is  as  given  below.  It  is 
curious  that  VA'illiam  Cove  liad  himself 
been  imprisoned  in  the  Tower  and  released 
by  mainprise,  as  appears  below.  His  name 
is  on  the  concluding  list  of  leading  mercers. 

'  Servant  to  Henry  Cove,  and  alleged 
by  the  complainants  to  have  been  the  chief 
leader  in  the  outrage  under  investigation. 

'  Described  as  "  Thomas  de  Maldon 
of  London  "  and  as  having  been  on  1 
December,  1357,  "  a  long  while  detained 
(in  the  Tower)  without  his  fault."  Vide 
n.  6  and  Introd.  p.  Ixxxi,  supra. 

•  This  name  does  not  occur  in  the  list 
of  leading  Mercers  given  at  the  end  of  A; 


nor  does  he  appear  ever  to  have  held  any 
office  in  the  City.  He  was  presumably, 
therefore,  like  Bernham,  a  person  of 
inferior  consequence.  Out  of  his  six  main- 
pernors, as  given  below,  three  were  mer- 
cers, which  points  to  his  probably  ha.ving 
been  a  member  of  that  company,  as  indeed 
do  the  circumstances  of  the  outrage. 

•"  An  order  had  issued  for  the  arrest  of 
"  Thomas  Everard  of  London,  mercer," 
but  had  not  been  executed  (vide  infra,  p. 
46).  Upon  his  petition  to  the  council  he 
was  allowed  the  benefit  of  mainprise.  The 
charge  against  him  was  the  same  as  that 
against  Maldon  (note  6,  supra)  4  March, 
1358.  (Cal.  Close  Rolls,  p.  495).  In  1366 
Alan  Everard,  mercer,  probably  a  relation, 
bequeathed  to  him  his  "  term  in  a  brewery 
situate  opposite  St.  Laurence  in  the 
JewT}'."  (Calendar  of  Wills  in  the  Court  of 
Husling,  London  [1890],  ii,  97.)  For  this 
combination  of  trades,  permitted  by  the 
custom  of  London,  see  Dr.  W.  Cunning- 
ham, Groicth  of  English  Indrtstry  and  Com- 
merce (4th  ed.  1895),  p.  345. 

"  In  Cal.  Close  Rolls,  1  November,  1357, 
p.  432,  is  an  order  to  the  sheriffs  "  to  cause 
the  taking  of  Adam  de  Wroxham  of  Lon- 
don, mercer,  to  be  superseded  by  a  main- 
prise, upon  his  instant  petition,  as  he  fears 
that  he  may  be  impeached  and  troubled 
for  certain  trespasses  committed  in  that 
city  upon  certain  merchants  of  Lombardy 
with  which  he  is  charged,  and  is  ready  to 
stand  to  right  in  all  things,  and  has  found 
before  the  Council  "  his  seven  mainper- 
nors as  given  in  the  text.  It  is  to  be 
observed  that  Wroksham  is  not  in  B  de- 
scribed as  "mercer"  nor  is  his  name  in  the 
list  of  Mercers  at  the  end  of  A,  while  of  his 
mainpernors  only  Alan  Everard  is  to  be 
found  there.  From  the  order  to  the  sheriffs 
it  would  appear  that  the  City  authorities 
had  contemplated  dealing  with  the  case, 
but  that  the  council,  probably  because  of 
the  City's  hostile  disposition  towards 
aliens,  had  taken  it  into  its  own  hands.    It 


LOMBARDS  V.   THE  MERCERS'  COMPANY 


43 


B 

Edward  by  the  grace  of  God  King  of  England  and  France  ^  and  Lord 
of  Ireland  to  the  SherifTs  of  London'  Greeting.  For  certain  causes  con- 
cerning us  we  command  you,  firmly  enjoining  you  that  j^ou  forewarn* 
Henry  Cove/  William  Cove,*  Geoffrey  Bernham,'  Thomas  Moulton,' 
William  [Woodford],'  Thomas  Everard,'"  Adam  Wroksham,"  Heniy 
Forester,"  John  Berne,"  Simon  Worsted, '■'  William  Totcnham,'^  John 
Worsted,"^  Alan  Everard,''  John  Stapele,'*  Walter  Berneye,''  John  Wich- 


appears  later  that  Wroksham  escaped  im- 
mediate arrest  but  was  subsequently 
taken  and  afterwards  released  on  main- 
prise. 

"  A  leading  malefactor  who  fled  from 
justice  but  was  afterwards  allowed  main- 
prise, vide  p.  46,  infra,  and  Introduction, 
p.  Ixxxi. 

"  This  is  presumably  the  Johan  Bernes 
on  the  list  of  leading  Mercers  in  A,  then 
sheriff  of  London.  Together  with  Simon 
de  Wursted,  mentioned  in  this  ca.se,  and 
Richard  de  Wursted,  he  appears  on  5  April, 
1356  as  an  executor  of  William  de  Causton, 
late  citizen  and  mercer  whose  apprentice 
he  had  been,  all  three  executors  being  de- 
scribed as  •'  citizens  and  mercers  of  Lon- 
don" {Cat.  Pal.  Rolls,  p.  366;  cf.  Close  Roll, 
11  June,  1355,  p.  201  and  21  June,  1355,  p. 
207).  He  was  sheriff  in  1358-59,  together 
with  John  Bures,  whose  name  appears  in 
these  papers.  In  1370-71  and  again  in 
1371-72  he  was  mayor,  having  during  his 
first  term  of  office  Sir  William  Walworth, 
afterwards  the  famous  slayer  of  Wat 
Tyler,  as  one  of  the  sheriffs.  It  is  recorded 
of  him  by  Stow  that  he  "  gave  a  Chest 
with  three  Locks,  and  one  thousand  Marks 
to  be  lent  to  poor  young  men  "  {Svrvey  of 
London,  6th  ed.  1755,  ii,  218.) 

"  See  last  note.  As  the  list  of  leading 
mercers  shows,  he  was  an  alderman.  His 
will,  dated  12  June,  1364,  was  proved  in  the 
Court  of  Husting  in  1366.  Calendar,  ii, 
95. 

"  Sheriff,  1354-55.  See  Close  Rolls,  29 
Ed.  Ill  (1355),  p.  207.  Stow  has  errone- 
ously given  the  name  as  "Nottingham."  In 
Close  Roll,  28  January,  1359,  p.  486,  certain 
indentures  are  entered  between  William  de 
Tudenham,  citizen  and  mercer  of  London, 
and  John  Mayn,  the  king's  Serjeant  at 
arms.  His  will,  dated  20  December,  1371, 
was  proved  in  April,  1371.  (Calendar  of 
Court  of  Husiing,  ii,  144.)  In  the  list  of 
mercers  the  name  is  spelt  Todenham. 

"  John  Worstede  appears  in  the  list  of 


mercers.  His  will  is  printed  in  the  Calen- 
dar of  Ihc  Court  of  Husiing,  ii,  114,  dated 
London,  10  August,  1368,  and  proved  in 
the  same  year.  Like  these  wills  generally 
it  contains  numerous  gifts  to  pious  objects; 
but  it  is  notable  as  leaving  "  to  the  hall  of 
Balliol,  Oxford,  twenty  shillings."  Ibid. 
115. 

"  A  person  of  this  name  "  staying  in 
England  "  in  March,  1357,  had  business  of 
some  sort  with  Ireland,  but  was  probably 
not  the  same  individu.al  as  Alan  Everard, 
citizen  and  mercer  of  London,  in  1360. 
See  Pat.  Rolls,  1357,  p.  516  and  cf.  Close 
Rolls,  8  Nov.  1360,  p.  138.  His  will  dated 
October,  1366,  was  proved  in  the  following 
month  {Cal.  nf  Court  of  Husting,  ii,  97). 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  the  list  which  fol- 
lows he  appears  as  "  of  London,"  which 
suggests  that  it  was  necessary  to  distin- 
guish him  from  another  of  the  same  name. 
This  other  was  perhaps  his  nephew,  the 
son  of  his  brother  William,  mentioned  in 
his  wUl.  He  appears  as  a  mainpernor  of 
no  fewer  than  five  of  the  accused. 

18  PresumabI}'  the  Johannes  Stable  who 
appears  on  the  next  list  as  a  mainpernor  of 
William  de  Wodeford.  As  John  Stable  he 
was  on  10  June,  1355,  one  of  the  witnesses 
to  a  deed  of  William  de  Causton  mentioned 
in  n.  13,  supra.  The  name  appears  as 
"  Johan  de  Stapele  "  in  the  A  list  of  mer- 
cers, supra. 

'•  Walter  Berneye,  citizen  and  mercer, 
was  a  person  of  some  importance.  On  2 
August,  1358,  he  obtained  a  letter  of  pri^'y 
seal,  exempting  him  from  being  put  on 
assizes,  juries,  and  from  appointment  as 
mayor,  sheriff,  escheator,  coroner,  or  other 
bailiff  or  minister  of  the  king  against  his 
will  (Pnt.  Roll,  p.  91).  He  was  returned  to 
parliament  for  the  City  in  1360  and  was 
sheriff  of  London  in  1360-61  (ib.  p.  568; 
Stow,  ii,  217).  His  will,  dated  at  Norwich, 
23  February,  1377,  but  proved  in  the  Court 
of  Husting  in  1379,  suggests  that  he  came 
from  that  city  (Calendar  of  Court  of  Hust- 


44  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

Berneye,''  Johannera  Wychjiigham,-"  Thomas  Starkolf,-'  Johannem  Red- 
jTige/"  Adam  Euerard,'^  Walterum  Bret,"  Nicholaum  Bedyngton,^°  Jo- 
hannem Ellesdone  '*  et  Nicholaum  Plunket  de  London  ^^  quod  quihbet 
eorum  sub  pena  ^*  Centum  Ubrarum  in  propria  persona  sua  sit  coram  con- 
siHo  nostro^'  apud  Westmonasterium  hac  instanti  die  Martis'"  ad  loquen- 
dum  cum  eodem  consilio  super  hiis  que  eis  tunc  ibidem  exponentur  ex  parte 
nostra  '^  et  ad  faciendum  ulterius  et  recipiendum  quod  per  dictum  consil- 
ium '^  ordinari  contigerit  in  premissis.  Et  hoc  sub  incumbenti  periculo 
nullatenus  omittatis.  Et  habeatis  ibi  nomina  illorum  per  quos  eos  pre- 
munire  feceritis  et  hoc  breve.  Teste  me  ipso  apud  Westmonasterium  viij 
die  Julii  anno  regni  nostri  AngUe  tricesimo  tercio,  regni  vero  nostri  Francis 

vicesimo.''  ...  _      ^  „ ,, 

per  consilium.  Burstall.'* 

[Endorsed:  — ]  ^'irtute  istius  brevis  premunire  fecimus  Henricum  Coue, 
Willelmum  Coue,  Galfridum  Berham,  Thomam  Moulton,  Willelmimi 
Wodeford,  Thomam  Euerard,  Adam  Wroksham,  Henricum  Forester, 
Johannem  Berne,  Simonem  Worstede,  Alanum  Euerard,  Johannem  de 
Staple,  Walterum  Berneye,  Johannem  Wychyngham,  Thomam  Starkolf, 
Johannera  Redynge,  Walterum  Bret,  Johannem  Ellesdone  et  Nicholaum 
Plunket  infrascriptos  quod  sint  coram  vobis  ad  diem  et  locum  in  brevi  con- 
tentos  ad  faciendum  quod  interius  precipitur  sub  pena  in  brevi  contenta  per 
Johannem  Penne  et  ^* 
Johannem  Broun.'^ 

Adam  Euerard  infrascriptus  nichil  habet  in  balUva  nostra  ubi  potest 
premuniri. 

ing,  ii,  205).    It  also  is  notable  as  contain-  here,  as  bail  for  "  Wroxham,"  the  name  is 

ing,  among  many  religious  bequests,  one  given  as  "  John  de  Ayleston." 
to  "  the  collegiate  clerks  of  Baliolehalle  "  Nicholas  Ploket  (sic),  citizen  and  mer- 

Oxford."     He  also  left  to  three  scholars  cer  of  London,  "  for  a  great  sum  of  money 

£40  "  ad  exercendas  scholas  "  at  Oxford  which  he  has  paid  down,"  purchased  in 

or  Cambridge  (ibid.).  1355  the  reversion,  on  her  death  or  mar- 

'"  In   the  list  of  leading  mercers.     A  riage,  of  certain  tenements  bequeathed  to 

mainpernor  of  William  de  Wodeford  and  Cristina,  widow  of  WiUiam  de  Causton. 

of  Thomas  de  Maldon,  vide  infra.  See  n.  13,  supra.     Close  Rolls,   1355,  p. 

*'  The  name  is  given  in  the  concluding  207. 
list  of  leading  mercers  as  Starkol.    His  will,  "  The  insertion  of  the  penal  clause,  here 

in  the  name  of  Starcolf,  dated  10  July,  noticed  for  the  first  time  among  such  writs, 

1361,  was  proved  in  the  same  year.    Cal.  is  a  step  toward  the  more  noted  writ  of 

of  Court  of  Husting,  ii,  35.  subpoena.    On  the  origin  and  authorship  of 

"  In  the  A  list  of  leading  mercers.  this  writ,  see  Introduction,  p.  xxxix. 

"  The  A  list  of  mercers  shows  that  this  "  The  phrase  coram  nobis  el  appears  to 

is  not  a  mistake  for  Alan,  but  is  another  have  been  inserted  temp.  Henry  IV.    See 

person,  apparently  cither  a  pauper,  or  not  Select  Cases  in  Star  Chamber,  p.  xxiii. 
a  resident  in  Ix)ndon.  '"  As  8  July  was  Monday,  on  which  day 

'*  In  the  A  list  of  leading  mercers.  the  writ  was  issued,  and  it  could  prosum- 

"  Dead.  ably  not  be  served  before  Tuesday,  this 

"  In  the  A  list  of  leading  mercers  as  must  have  meant  the  Tuesday  next  after 

Elesdon.    But  in  the  Close  Roll,  1  Novem-  its  service  on   the    sheriffs,   that    is,    16 

her,  1357,  p.  432,  where  he  appears,  as  July. 


LOMBARDS  V.   THE  MERCERS'  COMPANY  44 

ingham,'"  Thomas  Starkolf,^'  John  Reading,"  Adam  Evcrard,''  Walter 
Bret,"  Nicholas  Beddington,"  John  Ellesdone,"  and  Nicholas  Plunkct  of 
London  "  that  each  of  them  under  penalty  ^'  of  a  hundred  pounds  be  in 
his  own  person  before  our  council ''  at  Westminster  on  this  next  coming 
Tuesday'"  to  plead  with  the  same  council  upon  those  matters  which  shall 
then  be  there  exhibited  to  them  on  our  part "  and  further  to  do  and 
receive  that  which  shall  happen  to  be  ordained  in  the  premises  by  the  said 
council.'^  And  this  you  are  by  no  means  to  omit  at  your  instant  peril. 
And  you  are  to  have  there  the  names  of  those  by  whom  j-ou  shall  have 
forewarned  them  and  this  writ.  Witness  myself  at  Westminster  on  the 
eighth  day  of  July  in  the  thirty-third  year  of  our  reign  over  England  but 
the  twentieth  of  our  reign  over  France.'' 

By  the  Council.  Burstall." 

[Endorsed: — ]  By  virtue  of  this  writ  we  have  forewarned  the  within 
written  Henry  Cove,  William  Cove,  Geoffrey  Bernham,  Thomas  Moulton, 
William  Woodford,  Thomas  Everard,  Adam  Wroksham,  Henry  Forester, 
John  Berne,  Simon  Worsted,  Adam  Everard,  John  Stapeley,  Walter  Ber- 
neyc,  John  Wichingham,  Thomas  Starkolf,  John  Reading,  Walter  Bret, 
John  Ellesdone  and  Nicholas  Plunket  to  be  before  j^ou  at  the  day  and  place 
contained  in  the  writ  to  do  according  to  the  within  command  under  the 
penalty  contained  in  the  writ  bj'^ 
John  Penne  '*  and 
John  Brown.'* 

The  within  written  Alan  Everard  has  nothing  in  our  bailiwick  whereby 
he  can  be  forewarned. 

"  On  these  words  "  ex  parte  nostra  "  see  Hoghton  in  the  diocese  of  Durham,  as 

Select  Cases  in  the  Star  Chamber  (1477-  recorded  by  Foss.     These  facts  indicate 

1509),  p.  xxii.  that  he  was  a  non-resident  pluralist.    The 

"  The  form  under  Henrj*  IV  l>ecame  rest  of  his  biographj-  mil  be  found  in  Foss, 

per  nos  et  dictum  consilium.   Ibid.  xxiv.  who  is,  however,  mistaken  in  saying  that 

"  8  July,  1359.  his  name  does  not  occur  after  his  superses- 

»*  The  researches  of  Foss  were  not  sue-  sion  as   keeper  of  the  rolls   by  John  de 

cessful  in  tracing  the  career  of  William  Waltham    on   8    September,    1381    (Pat. 

Burstall   further  back   than   1371,   when  /?o//s,  p.  41),  for  on  the  following  6  October 

jointly  with  three  others  he  was  appointed  he,  with  six  others,  paid  for  a  license  to 

a  commissioner  of  the  Great  Seal  during  alienate  in  mortmain  the  manor  of  Cad- 

the  absence  of  the  chancellor,  Sir  Robert  burj-  to  the  prior  and  convent  of  Bisshe- 

Thorpe.     (Lires  of  the  Jwlgcs  [1851],  iv,  made   (Bushmead,    Beds.),    ib.    p.   51,    a 

38.)     The  publication  of  the  Close  Rolls,  property  which,  however,  appears  to  have 

however,  discloses  that  in  1355  he  was  a  been   parted   with  by  the  priory   before 

clerk  of  the  chancery  (22  February,  Close  the    Dissolution    (Dugdale,    Monast.   vi. 

Roll,  184;    17  May,   1355,  ib.  220).     He  284). 

appears,  unless  it  were  another  of  the  same  "  "  Clerk,"    and   deputy-clerk   of   the 

name,  to  have  also  held  the  livings  of  Mit-  recognisances   of    debts    in   London.     28 

talton   and    Deukeshull    (Salop),    in    the  June,  1359.     Pat.  Rolls,  p.  232. 

diocese  of  Hereford,  which  he  resigned  in  '•  A  person  of  this  name  was  a  king's 

1358  (Pat.  Rolls,  p.  64).    That  it  was  the  Serjeant  at  arms,  and  may  not   improb- 

same  person  is  the  more  probable  from  the  ably  have  been  this  signatory.    Pat.  Rolls, 

fact  that  in   1375  he  held  the  living  of  March,  1361,  p.  584. 


45 


CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 


Nicholaus  Bedj-ngton  infrascriptus  mortuus  est. 
fecimus. 


Ideo  de  eo  nichil 


[Responsio]  Johannis  Bures  et  Johannis  [de  Byerne]s  vicecomitum.^'' 
Manucaptores  ^  Willelmi  de  Wodef ord : 

Johannes  Stable 

Adam  Stable '' 

lohannes  Wychyngham 

Galfridus  Colwell 

Laurencius  Conestable  *" 

Alanus  Euerard 
Manucaptores  Nieholai  de  Sharpenham  "  Mercer: 

Johannes  Lambourne*^ 

Thomas  Beket « 

Simon  Plummer  ** 

Elias  de  Braghing  ^^ 
Manucaptores  Thome  Euerard  de  London  IMercer: 

Henricus  Coue 

Adam  Stable 

Simon  de  Reynham  *^ 

Willelmus  de  Somerford  " 

Alanus  Euerard  de  London 


de  Comitatu  Surrie 


de  London 


"  John  de  Bures  and  John  de  Byernes 
(in  Stow,  Barnes)  are  mentioned  as  sheriffs 
of  London  in  1358-59,  when  they  paid  a 
sum  to  the  receipt  of  the  Exchequer  on 
behalf  of  the  commonalty  of  Middlesex  in 
substitution  for  ten  mounted  archers  which 
the  county  had  been  ordered  to  raise  for 
foreign  service  {Pat.  Rolls,  10  August, 
1359,  p.  252).  John  Bures  was  perhaps 
the  John  Burs,  draper,  who  in  1375  was  a 
legatee  of  Thomas  de  St.  Alban  (Cal.  of 
Courl  ofHusting,  ii,  172).  The  will  of  John 
Bierncs,  alderman,  dated  July,  1375,  was 
proved  in  the  same  year.  He  constituted 
by  it  the  Grocers,  Drapers  and  Mercers 
Companies  and  the  City  Chamberlain  trus- 
tees of  a  fund  for  the  loan  of  money  not 
exceeding  £10  "  to  such  as  are  in  need, 
security  being  taken  for  the  same  "  (ibid. 
p.  150).  His  name  appears  in  the  A  list  of 
leading  mercers  as  Bernes. 

"  "  Mainpernors,  Manuca-plorcs,  are 
those  Persons  to  whom  a  Person  is  de- 
livered out  of  Custody  or  Prison,  and  they 
become  security  for  him,  either  for  appear- 
ance or  satisfaction:  they  are  called 
Manucaptores,  because  they  do  it  as  it 


were  manii  capere  et  ducere  eaptivum  e 
custodia  vel  prisona."  J.  Cowel,  Inter- 
preter. Coke  defines  differently,  being  at 
pains  to  distinguish  mainprise  from  bail. 
"  Every  bail  is  a  mainprise  (for  those  that 
arc  bail  take  the  person  bailed  into  their 
hands  and  custody)  but  every  mainprise  is 
not  a  bail,  becase  no  man  is  bailed  but  he 
that  is  arrested,  or  in  prison,  for  he  that  is 
not  in  custody  or  prison  cannot  be  de- 
livered out.  .  .  .  But  a  man  may  be 
niainperned  which  never  was  in  prison,  and 
therefore  mainprise  is  more  large  than 
bail."  Inst.  179.  It  is  clear,  however, 
from  these  papers  that  the  word  mainprise 
was  currently  used  as  equivalent  to  hail, 
as  may  be  seen  from  the  French  note  on 
the  case  of  Henry  and  William  Cove, 
while  the  defendants  Wodeford,  Everard, 
Wroxham  and  Forester  hail  api)arently 
never  been  in  custody,  but  are  descril)ed 
also  as  on  mainprise.  See  Introd.  p.  xl, 
supra. 

"  Witness  to  a  deed  of  conveyance  of 
land  in  Norfolk  to  Walter  dc  Berneye  (see 
n.  19,  supra)  on  ti  Feltruary,  13C2.  Close 
Rolls,  |).  38G.     Api)arently  connected  by 


LOMBARDS    V.   THE    MERCERS'    COMPANY 


45 


The  within  named  Nicholas  Bcddington  is  dead.    We  have  therefore 
done  nothing  in  his  case. 


[Answer]  of  John  Bures  and  of  John  [de  Bycrne]s  "  sub-sheriffs. 

Mainpernors''  of  WilHam  Woodford: 

John  Stable 
Adam  Stable '» 
John  Wichingham 
Geoffrej'  Colwcll 
Laurence  Constable  *• 
Alan  Everard. 

Mainpernors  of  Nicholas  Sharpenham  "  Mercer: 

John  Lambourne  " 
Thomas  Beket « 
Simon  Plummcr  '*'' 
Elijah  Braughin." 

Mainpernors  of  Thomas  Everard  of  London  Mercer: 

Henry  Cove 
Adam  Stable 
Simon  Reynham  '* 
William  Somerford  ^' 
Alan  Everard  of  London 


►  of  the  county  of  Surrey 


of  London 


marriage  with  Alan  Everard  (n.  17,  supra). 
Cai.  of  Court  of  Husling,  ii,  97. 

*"  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  Wode- 
ford  or  his  mainpernors  Colwell  and  Cone- 
stable  belonged  to  the  Mercers. 

"  See  Introd.  p.  Ixxx. 

"  A  witness  on  27  January,  13.56,  to  a 
convej-ance  to  the  king  by  the  Prior  of 
Bermundeseye,  John  de  Cusancia,  of 
divers  messuages,  &c.  With  him  as  wit- 
nesses were  Ellis  de  Braghyng  (n.  45, 
infra)  and  Simon  le  Plumber  of  Suthwerk 
(n.  44,  infra). 

"  On  15  October,  1358,  Thomas  Beket 
was  commissioned  with  three  others  to 
make  inquisition  into  the  deaths  of  two 
men  killed  at  Malwedon  (qu.  Manuden), 
Essex,  and  to  deliver  those  guilty  to  the 
sheriff  at  Colchester.    Pat.  Rolls,  p.  153. 

**  Simon  Plummer,  Plomer,  or  le  Plum- 
ber, of  Southwark,  was  a  man  of  note  in 
that  borough.  His  name  appears  as  a 
witness  to  deeds  dated  "  Suthwerk  "  in 
July,  1354,  January,  1356,  and  November, 


1357  (Close  Rolh,  pp.  83, 295,  427).  In  that 
of  1356  the  deed  was  the  conveyance  of  a 
reversion  by  the  prior  of  Bermundeseye  to 
the  king,  in  that  of  1357,  a  deed  of  release 
of  certain  lands  to  the  Southwark  diocesan, 
William  de  Edyndon,  bishop  of  Winches- 
ter. He  was  returned  to  parliament  for 
Surrey  in  1360,  and  again  in  1361.  {Mem- 
bers of  Parliament,  1S78.) 

"  Elias  or  Ellis  de  Braghing,  or  Braugh- 
yngg  was  evidently  on  terms  of  alliance 
with  Plummer,  for  he  appears  with  him  as 
a  witness  to  the  deeds  of  1354  and  1356 
already  mentioned  and  was  returned  mem- 
ber of  parliament  for  the  borough  of  South- 
wark in  1358.     (Ibid.) 

«  In  the  Patent  RoU  for  12  May,  1362, 
p.  189,  is  a  pardon  to  Alesia  later  the  wife 
of  Ralph  de  Saint  Oweyn,  a  defaulting 
debtor  to  "  Simon  de  Reynham,  citizen 
and  mercer  of  London." 

*'  One  of  the  mainpernors  of  Thomas  de 
Maldon,  of  London,  on  1  Dec,  1357,  and 
of  Thomas  Everard  on  4  March,   1358. 


46 


CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 


►   de  London 


Manucaptores  Thome  de  Maldone : 

[Alan  Ever]ard 

Adam  Wroxham 

Willelmus  de  Grantham^ 

Willelmus  de  Maldone 

Willelmus  Somerford 

Willelmus  Coue 
Manucaptores  Ade  de  Wroxham : 

Ricardus  Lacer  *^ 

Johannes  de  Wesenham^" 

Johannes  Mayn  *' 

Henrieus  de  Brj^sele  ^^ 

Alanus  Euerard 

lohannes  de  Aylestone  " 

Galfridus  de  Neutone  '* 
D 

Alanus  Euerard  et  alii  manueeperunt  Thomam  Euerard  Adam  Wrox- 
ham et  Henricum  Forester. 

Willelmus  Weld  **  et  alii  manueeperunt  Henricum  Coue. 

Henrieus  Coue  et  alii  manueeperunt  Willelmum  Coue. 

Alanus  Euerard  et  alii  manueeperunt  AVillchnum  Wodeford. 

Johannes  de  Wychyngham  et  alii  manueeperunt  Thomam  de  Maldone. 


de  London 


Close  Rolls,  pp.  432,  495.  See  nn.  6,  8, 
supra. 

*'  Also  a  mainpernor  of  Maldon  on  1 
Dec.  1357.     Vide  supra. 

"  Richard  Lacer,  or  Lacier,  Alderman 
of  London,  mercer;  witness  to  a  grant  of 
shops  in  London  in  February,  1358  (Close 
Rolls,  p.  494).  His  will,  dated  25  July, 
1361,  is  in  the  Calendar  of  the  Court  of  Hxuit- 
ing,  ii,  59.  Richard  Lazer  is  given  by  Stow 
as  a  variant  for  Richard  Leget,  mayor  in 
1345-46,  and  may  possibly  have  been  the 
same  man.     (Survey,  ii,  217.) 

'"  John  of  Wesenham  "  the  king's  mer- 
chant "  was  an  agent  employed  by  Edward 
III  to  take  over  the  money  raised  as  suli- 
sidy  in  Northumberland  (Close  Rolls,  15 
June,  1355,  p.  135),  as  well  as  for  other 
financial  transactions  (ib.  p.  278).  He 
appears  also  to  have  been  an  exporter  of 
com  (Pat.  Rolls,  20  May,  1357,  p.  545)  and 
in  1300  contracted  to  provide  at  Lynn  sup- 
plies for  the  victualling  of  Calais  (Close 
Rolls,  23  January,  p.  607).  His  tran.sac- 
tions  with  the  crown  were  lx)th  on  a  large 
and  a  varied  scale.  On  1  February,  1357 
he  received  a  year's  lease  of  all  the  tem- 
poralities of  the  important  bishopric  of 


Elv,  "  rendering  to  the  king  in  the  Ward- 
robe 3,740  marks  "  (£2493,  6s.  8d.)  (Close 
Rolls,  p.  392).  He  was  in  1357  an  owner  of 
house  property  in  London  (Pat.  Rolls,  p. 
036).  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  he 
was  a  member  of  the  Mercers'  Company. 
"  John  Maj-n,  the  king's  sergeant  at 
arms,  frequently  appears  in  the  Close 
Rolls  and  Patent  Rolls.  He  must  have 
been  a  man  of  means,  for  on  19  December, 
1354,  the  Prior  of  St.  Bartholomew's, 
Smithfield,  acknowledges  a  debt  to  him  of 
£40  (Close  RolU,  p.  99;  cf.  ib.  pp.  78,  324, 
&c.  and  Pat.  Rolls,  4  Jan.  1361,  p.  150.) 
In  1358  he  purchased  lands  in  Surrey  from 
William  de  Tudenham  (see  n.  15,  supra). 
He  was  frequently  employed  to  arrest 
criminals  and  bring  them  before  the  king 
and  council  (6  March.  1356,  Pal.  RolU,  p. 
395;  cf.  ib.  pp.  450,  490).  But  he  was  also 
employed  in  the  more  serious  duty  of  a 
commissioner  to  inquire  into  and  report  on 
grievances,  .as  in  the  case  of  a  complaint 
of  Venetian  merchants  against  the  town 
of  Bristol  on  0  February,  1355,  ib.  p.  225, 
and  of  a  shipwTCckcd  crew  against  Win- 
chelsca,  I{ye,  &c.  (11  January,  13.50,  ib. 
p.  500).    That  sergeants  at  arms  had  and 


LOMBARDS   V.  THE  MERCERS'  COMPANY 


46 


of  London 


Mainpernors  of  Thomas  Maldone: 

[Alan  Everjard 

Adam  Wroxham 

William  Grantham  *^ 

William  Maiden 

William  Sonicrford 

William  Cove. 
Mainpernors  of  Adam  de  Wroxham: 

Richard  Lacer  *' 

John  Wesenham  ^° 

John  Mayn  '' 

Henry  Brj'selcy  ^^ 

Alan  Everard 

John  Aylestone  ^ 

Geoffrey  Newton." 
D 

Alan  Evcrartl  and  others  have  gone  surety  for  Thomas  Everard,  Adam 
Wroxham,  and  Henry  Forester. 

William  Weld  "  and  others  have  gone  surety  for  Henry  Cove. 
Henrj'  Cove  and  others  have  gone  surety  for  William  Cove. 
Alan  Everard  and  others  have  gone  surety  for  William  Woodford. 
John  Wichingham  and  others  have  gone  surety  for  Thomas  Maldone. 

eontrariant  or  rebellious."  (Pat.  Rolls,  p. 
87.)  He  received  a  similar  commission  on 
5  June,  1360,  "  to  select  miners  and  other 
workmen  "  to  work  in  the  king's  mines  in 
Devonshire,  he  and  his  fellow-commis- 
sioner being  styled  "  masters  of  the  king's 
mines  in  the  county  of  Devon"  (ib.  p.  371). 
As  the  two  were  already  lessees  of  all  the 
king's  mines  of  gold  and  silver  in  that 
county  (8  Feb.  1360,  ib.  p.  336),  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  commission  was  to  assist 
them  in  compelling  miners  to  work  for 
them.  That  he  was  also  engaged  in  some 
business  associating  him  with  mercers 
appears  from  a  recognizance  by  which  he, 
with  three  mercers,  John  de  Wesenham 
and  three  others,  was  bound  in  £2000  to 
the  late  keeper  of  the  king's  Wardrobe  (16 
February,  1359,  Close  Rolls,  p.  611). 

"  See  n.  26,  supra. 

"  Not  in  the  A  list  of  leading  Mercers. 
It  would  appear,  therefore,  that  only 
Lacer  and  Man  Everard,  among  the  seven 
mainpernors  of  Wroxham,  belonged  to  the 
Company. 

"  In  the  Close  Roll  for  August,  1354,  p. 
89,  William  atte  Wclde  is  given  as  one  of 
the  two  sheriffs.     The  name  appears  in 


availed  themselves  of  ample  oi)port unities 
to  enrich  themselves  appears  from  a  com- 
plaint of  the  Commons  in  1399  {Rot.  Pari. 
iii,  439  b).  See  Select  cases  in  the  Star 
Chamber  (1477-1509),  p.  xxvii,  n.  1. 

'*  Henry  of  Brysele,  Briseleye,  Brisele, 
Brusele,  or  Brysely  was,  like  John  Wasen- 
ham,  a  man  of  business  and,  apparently, 
not  a  Mercer.  We  first  meet  with  him  as 
"  master  of  the  moneys,"  in  modern  par- 
lance, master  of  the  mint,  in  1353  [Pat. 
Rolls,  26  February,  1354,  pp.  7,  12).  On 
31  May,  13.55  he  was  promoted  to  the 
lucrative  office.of  "  changer  and  assayer  of 
the  king's  moneys  in  his  charges  in  the 
Tower  of  London  and  elsewhere  "  (ib.  p. 
238),  but  was  displaced  by  Hugh  de  Wych- 
yngham  on  7  November,  1356  (ib.  p.  467). 
He  was,  however,  appointed  by  the  king's 
council  on  16  July,  1358,  one  of  two  com- 
missioners empowered  "  to  take  in  the  City 
of  London  and  the  suburbs  carpenters, 
masons,  and  other  workmen  for  the  repairs 
of  the  houses  ordained  for  the  works  of  the 
king's  money  in  the  Tower  of  London,  and 
put  them  to  the  work  to  stay  therein  at 
the  king's  wages  so  long  as  shall  be  neces- 
sary, taking  and  imprisoning  any  found 


47  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

Ista  cedula  scripta  fuit  in  consilio  juxta  informacionem  datam  per  quos- 
dam  Merceros  Londinienses  tunc  ibidem  existentes,  pro  eo  quod  rotulus  de 
manucapcionibus  predictis  non  fuit  ibi  presens. 

PARSON  OF  L.\NGAR  v.  CONYNGSBY' 

1361  A  nostre  seigneur  le  Roi  et  son  bone  conseil  moustre  Thomas,  persone  de 
Langar  ^  el  countee  de  NotjTigham,  qe  come  la  male  mesme  cesti  Thomas 
feust  emble  deuant  Chartres '  en  Fraunce,  et  le  garsoun  le  dit  Thomas  pour- 
suit  en  la  Marchalcie  deuant  Conestable  et  Marchal  *  deuers  un  homme, 
seruant  a  monsieur  William  de  Conyngesby,^  et  en  la  dite  Marchalcie  furent 
ajuggez  de  combatre/  et  par  cause  qe  le  dit  Thomas  soi  dota  de  irregulertee  ' 
il  fist  retrere  son  dit  vadlet  de  sa  seute,  et  puis  vint  le  dit  sire  William  en  la 
dite  Marchalcie  et  sui  par  bille  deuers  le  dit  Thomas  contenante  par  sa 
pleinte  qe,  par  entre  le  dit  Thomas  et  son  vadlet  et  par  abette  le  dit  Thomas 
confedere  entre  eaux  deux,  auoit  le  vadlet  le  dit  Thomas  sui  deuers  le  vadlet 
le  dit  sire  William  a  damage  le  dit  sire  Wilham  de  Centz  Marcz,  queux 
damages  lui  fueront  ajuggez,  et  ceo  en  la  absence  le  dit  Thomas  en  centre  la 
leie.*  Et  par  cause  del  errour  susdit  le  Roi  prist  le  cause  en  sa  main,  et 
journa  les  parties  deuant  son  conseil  en  Engleterre  destre  deuant  eux  a 
juger  par  cause  la  Marchalcie  nad  conusaunce  de  tiel  plee.  Et  puis  la  venue 
le  Roi  nostre  seignour  en  Engleterre  vient  le  dit  sire  William  et  plusours 
autres  en  sa  cempaigne  vindront  en  la  jornant  a  la  meiseun  le  dit  Thomas, 
person  de  Langar,  et  lui  pristront  hors  de  son  lyt  et  lui  amenero[nt]  a  la 
meson  le  sire  Tiptoft  et  puis  en  Shirewode  '  et  illeoqes  lui  fieront  faire  fin  de 
Centz  Marcz,  paiant  en  mayn  x  li.  et  lier  en  iiij  C.  marcz  en  seurte  de 
paiement  de  les  Cent  marcz  susditz  aiours  entre  eux  acordez,  et  de  illeoqes 
lui  ameneront  tanqe  a  Lenton '"  et  lui  fieront  jurer  sur  la  corps  Dieu  sacra 

Stow's  Survey,  ii,  217,  as  Wilde  with  a  ably  there  was  a  merging  of  the  two  during 

variant  Wold.  the  king's  sojourn  at  Chartres.    There  is, 

'  Ancient  Petitions,  no.  2777;   cited  in  however,  an  essential  difference  between 

Palgrave,  Original  Authority.  the  marshalsea,  which  had  its  foundation 

'  A  parish  and  manor  in  Bingham  9  in  the  common  law  (Coke,  Fourth  Inst.  ch. 

miles  from  Newark.  The  church  was  called  xviii)  and  the  court  of  chivalry,  which  fol- 

St.  Aubrey's.  The  manor  and  advowson  of  lowed  the  civil  law  (Coke,  ch.  x\'ii;  L.  W. 

the  church  belonged  at  this  time  to  John  V.   Harcourt,   The  Steward  and  Trial  of 

Lord  Tiptoft  (Dugdale,  Baronage,  ii,  40;  Peers   [1907],   362  f.).     It    will   presently 

Cal.  CI.  RolU,  28  Ed.  Ill,  66-67).  appear  that  the  ease  in  question  pertained 

'  On  his  campaign  begun  in  Oct.  1359,  to  the  latter  court. 
Edward  came  in  the  following  April  to  '  Conysby  or  Coningsby,  a  family  of 

Chartres   where   negotiations   leading   to  Shropshire  origin,  traced  from  the  time 

the  Peace  of  Brdtigny  were  begun.    Ram-  of  Edward  I  (R.  E.  C.  Waters,  Memoirs  of 

say.  Genesis  of  Lancaster  (1913),  i,  438.  the  Chestcrs  of  Chicheky  [1878],  259).    This 

*  The  petitioner  has  confused  the  mar-  William  was  son  of  John  of  Morton  Bagot 

shalsea,  the  court  of  the  king's  household,  inWarwickshire  and  had  estates  in Worces- 

under  the  steward  and  marshal,  and  the  tershirc.   In  1351  he  was  reported  as  going 

court  of  chivalry  before  the  constable  of  on  the  king's  service  to  Calais  (Co/.  Pa(.  25 

England   and   the  carl   marshal.      Prob-  Ed.  Ill,  94),  and  in  the  campaign  of  1359- 


PARSON  OF  LANGAR  V.   CONYNGSBY  47 

This  schedule  was  written  in  the  council  according  to  information  given 
by  certain  mercers  of  London  then  and  there  present,  for  the  reason  that  the 
roll  of  the  suretyships  aforesaid  was  not  there  at  hand. 

PARSON  OF  LANGAR  v.  CONYNGSBY  ■ 

13G1  To  our  lord  the  king  and  his  good  council  sheweth  Thomas  parson  of 
Langar  ^  in  the  county  of  Nottingham  that  whereas  the  portmanteau  of  the 
said  Thomas  was  stolen  before  Chartres'  in  France  and  the  servant  of  the 
said  Thomas  sued  a  certain  man,  servant  of  William  Conyngsby,*  in  the 
marshalsea  before  the  constable  and  marshal,''  where  they  were  adjudged  to 
combat,*  and  because  the  said  Thomas  was  afraid  of  (incurring)  irregu- 
larity' he  witlulrew  his  said  servant  from  his  suit;  and  then  came  the 
said  Sir  William  into  the  said  marshalsea  and  entered  suit  by  bill  against 
the  said  Thomas,  alleging  in  his  plaint  that  between  the  said  Thomas  and 
his  servant  by  abetting  of  the  said  Thomas  an  understanding  of  the  two 
had  been  reached,  (whereby)  the  servant  of  the  said  Thomas  brought  suit 
against  the  servant  of  the  said  Sir  William  damaging  the  said  Sir  William 
(to  the  extent)  of  a  hundred  marks,  and  these  damages  were  awarded  him 
in  the  absence  of  the  said  Thomas  contrary  to  law.*  And  because  of  the 
aforesaid  error  the  king  took  the  case  into  his  hand,  giving  a  day  for  the 
parties  to  be  before  his  council  in  England  there  to  be  judged  because 
the  marshalsea  has  no  cognisance  of  such  a  plea.  And  since  the  return  of 
our  lord  the  king  to  England  there  came  the  said  Sir  William  and  many 
others  in  his  company  at  daybreak  to  the  house  of  the  said  Thomas  parson 
of  Langar,  dragging  him  out  of  his  bed  and  taking  him  to  the  house  of  Lord 
Tiptoft,  and  then  into  Sherwood  ^  and  there  forced  him  to  make  fine  in  100 
marks  paying  £10  down  and  giving  bond  for  400  marks  to  secure  the  pay- 
ment of  the  100  marks  agreed  upon  between  them;  thence  they  took  him 
to  Lenton,'"  and  before  they  permitted  him  to  leave  their  company  made 
him  swear  on  the  sacred  body  of  God  to  keep  the  aforesaid  covenant.    And 

60  he  was  in  the  company  of  the  earl  of  would  exhaust  its  terrors  in  the  endeavour 

Warwick.    (Ibid.  34  Ed.  Ill,  386.)   In  1360  to   make   the   defendant   appear,    but   it 

in  consideration  for  his  good  service  on  this  would  not  give  judgment  against  him  until 

expedition  he  was  pardoned  for  the  death  he  had  appeared,  and,  if  he  was  obstinate 

of  Thomas  Clynton  (ibid.).  enough  to  endure  imprisonment   or  out- 

'  In  the  court  of  chivalry  suits  were  lawTy,  he  could  deprive  the  plaintiff  of  his 

begun  by  bill  and  trial  was  by  witnesses,  remedy."     (Pollock  &  Maitland,  ii,  594.) 

or  failing  these,  as  in  the  present  case,  by  Whether  the  court  of  chivalry  was  bound 

wager  of  battle.     Harcourt,  366.  by  this  law  was  of  course  the  question. 

'  A  clerk  was  forbidden  by  the  law  of  As  to  the  appeal  on  error  see  Introd. 
the  church  to  go  before  a  lay  court  and  '  Sherwood  Forest,  in  early  times  ex- 

seek   a   judgment   of    blood    (Pollock   &  tending  over  a  fifth  of  the  county  of  Not- 

Maitland,  Hist.  Eng.  Law  [1898],  i,  456).  tingham,  more  wooded  than  most  forests 

The   church   dealt   severely   with   blood-  and  the  resort  of  many  criminal  bands, 

guiltiness  among  the  clergy.    O.  J.  Reichel,  Victoria  Hist.  Nottingham,  i,  365. 
Manual  of  Canon  Law  (1896),  i,  239.  ">  Southwest  of  the  town  of  Notting- 

'  "  One  thing  our  law  would  not  do.    It  ham. 


48  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

pour  tenir  les  couenantz  susditz  auant  qil  purroit  partir  hors  de  lour  com- 
paigne.  Et,  par  cause  qe  le  dit  Thomas  suit  deuers  nostre  seignour  le  Roi 
dauer  recouerer,  le  dit  sire  AVilliam  et  autres  de  sa  compaignie  lui  manassont 
de  vie  et  de  membre  issint  qil  ne  ose  en  nul  part  aler  ne  estre  vewe.  Dont  le 
dit  Thomas  prie  a  nostre  seignour  le  Roi  qe  remedie  lui  soit  fait  en  oeure  de 
charite.  Et  outre  ceo  le  dit  sire  William  et  sa  compaignie  pristrent  le  dit 
Thomas  en  Walbroke  "  de  Londres  et  lui  emprisonerent  par  cause  qil  ne 
dust  suer  a  nostre  seignour  le  Roi  ore  de  temps  de  parlement  dauoir  remedie 
de  les  duresses  auanditz. 

[Endorsed:  — ]  Partes  sunt  concordate  et  Johannes  de  Arderne  '-  manu- 
ccpit  coram  consilio  domini  Regis  in  camera  stellata  in  palacio  Westm'  die 
Martis  in  Crastino  sancti  Petri  in  cathedra,  videlicet  xxiij  die  Februarii 
anno  regni  domini  nostri  Regis  Anghe  xxxv'°  pro  Willelmo  de  Conyngesby, 
milite,  infra  scripto,quod  ipse  bene  et  fideliter  de  cetero  se  geret  erga  Regem 
et  populum  suum,  et  quod  dampnum  vel  violenciam  aliquam  Thome  '  per- 
son '  de  Langar  infra  scripto  aut  ahcui  alteri  de  populo  predicto  non  faciei 
nee  fieri  procurabit,  per  quod  idem  Willelmus  est  dearestatus  et  dimissus  de 
gracia  Regis  et  finis  quern  idem  Willelmus  pro  trangressionibus  infra  scrip- 
tis  Regi  facere  tenetur  ponitur  in  respectum  ad  voluntatem  domini  Regis 
secundum  bonum  gestum  ipsius  Willelmi,  et  prefatus  Johannes  manucepit 
coram  consilio  Regis  quod  predictus  Willehnus  restituet  sibi  illas  x  li.  quas 
dictus  rector  ei  soluerat,  unam  videlicet  medietatem  ad  festum  Pentecostes 
et  aliam  medietatem  ad  festum  sancti  Michaelis,  et  quod  restituet  eidem 
Rectori  litteras  suas  obUgatorias  de  quibus  in  billa  fit  mencio. 

MOLYNS  V.  FIENNES  • 

1365        Placita  in  parliamento  apud  Westmonasterium  in  Octabis  sancti  Hillarii 
anno  regni  Regis  Edwardi  tercii  tricesimo  nono.^ 

Egidia  que  fuit  uxor  Johannis  de  Molyns '  porrexit  peticionera  suam 
domino  Regi  in  Parliamento  suo  apud  Westmonasterium  in  Octabis  sancti 
Hillarii  anno  regni  ipsius  domini  Regis  tricesimo  octauo  *  tento  in  hec 
verba.  A  nostre  seignur  le  Roi  e  son  conseil  monstre  Gile  qi  feust  la  femme 
Johan  de  Molj'ns  Chiualer  qe  come  Robert  de  Fiennes  de  France  ^  recoueri 

"  A  ward  and  also  a  street  on  the  east  sheriff  of  Bedfordshire  and  Buckingham- 
side  of  the  Walbrook  a  small  tributary  of  shire  in  1374. 

the  Thames  running  through  the  wall  of  '  Parliamerdary  and  Council  Proceed- 

the  city  between  Bishopsgate  and  Moor-  ings  (Chancery),  file  8,  no.  7. 
gate.     Kingsford-Stow,  i,  120.  '  20  January,    1366,   but   '"  nono,"  as 

"  Ardern,  frequently  employed  as  an  will  presently  be  seen,  is  an  inaccuracy 

attorney,  receiver,  and  commissioner.    He  for    "  octavo."     Parliament    met    on    20 

was  commissioner  of  the  peace  in  Bed-  January,    1365;  but   the  39  Ed.   Ill  be- 

fordshire  in  1355  and  in  Buckinghamshire  gan  on   25   January  of    the   same  year, 

1361-69,  knight  of  the  shire  for  Bucking-  after  which  date  this  record  wa.s  doubt- 

hamshire  in   1362,   1366,  and   1368,  and  less  entered.     The  petition  was  presum- 


MOLYNS    V.   FIENNES  48 

because  the  said  Thomas  sues  before  our  lord  tlie  king;  for  recovery,  the  said 
Sir  William  and  othei-s  of  his  company  threaten  him  in  life  and  limb  so  that 
he  dares  not  go  or  be  seen  anywhere.  Wherefore  the  said  Thomas  prays 
our  lord  the  kinp;  that  romeily  may  be  afforded  him,  in  the  way  of  charity. 
Moreover  the  said  Sir  William  and  his  company  seized  the  said  Thomas  in 
Walbrook  "  in  London  and  imprisoned  him  lest  he  should  sue  our  lord  the 
king  now  in  time  of  parlianu^nt  for  remedy  for  the  aforesaid  duresses. 

[Endorsed:  — ]  The  parties  are  agreed  and  John  Arderne  '^  has  given 
security  before  the  council  of  the  lord  the  king  in  the  star  chamber  in  the 
palace  at  Westminster  on  Wednesday  the  day  after  (the  feast  of)  St.  Peter 
in  Cathedra,  that  is,  the  23d  day  of  February  in  the  35th  j'ear  of  the  reign  of 
our  lord  the  king  of  England,  for  William  Conyngsby,  knight,  above  men- 
tioned, that  he  would  henceforth  conduct  himself  well  and  faithfully 
towards  the  king  and  his  people,  and  that  he  would  neither  commit  nor  pro- 
cure to  be  committed  any  damage  or  violence  against  the  above  mentioned 
Thomas  parson  of  Langar  or  any  other  of  the  aforesaid  people,  wherefore 
the  said  William  is  released  and  dismissed  by  the  king's  grace,  while  the  fine 
which  the  said  William  is  bound  to  pay  the  king  for  the  transgressions  pre- 
viously described  is  respited  at  the  pleasure  of  the  lord  the  king  according 
to  the  good  conduct  of  the  said  William;  and  the  aforesaid  John  gave 
security  before  the  king's  council  that  the  aforesaid  William  would  restore 
to  him  the  £10  which  the  said  rector  had  paid  him,  that  is,  one  half  at  the 
feast  of  Pentecost  and  the  other  half  at  Michaelmas,  and  that  he  would 
restore  to  the  same  rector  the  letters  of  obligation  of  which  mention  is 
made  in  the  bill. 

MOLYNS  V.  FIENNES ' 

1365        Pleas  in  ParUament  at  Westminster  in  the  Octave  of  St.  Hillary  in  the 
thirty-ninth  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  the  Third.- 

Gill,  late  the  wife  of  John  de  Molyns '  brought  her  petition  to  the  lord 
the  king  in  his  parliament  at  Westminster  holden  in  the  Octave  of  Saint 
Hillary  in  the  thirty-eighth  year  of  the  same  lord  the  king  ■*  in  these  words. 
"  To  our  lord  the  king  and  his  council  sheweth  Gill  late  the  wife  of  John  de 
Molyns  knight  that  as  Robert  de  Fiennes  of  France  *  recovered  of  late  the 

ably  presented  in  the  38th  year  and  heard  of  Fiennes  {Buckingham,  ii,  470)  remarks 

in  the  39th.  on  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  the  mate- 

'  Son  of  Vincent  de  Molyns,  Moleyns,  rials   for   its   e.irly   history,    a   coniijlaint 

or  Molines.    He  was  a  famous  soldier  and  illustrated  l)y  this  document.     His  pedi- 

political  personage  under  Edward  HI,  and  gree  differs  from  that  here  given. 


William  de  Fiennee 


in  right  of  his  wife.  Gill,  lord  of  the  manor 
of  Stoke  Poges,  Bucks.    He  is  believed  to 

have  died  in  Cambridge  Castle  in  1362.  |              '             ] 

His  life  will  be  found  related  at  length  in  Robert  de  Fiennes       William  de  Fiennes 

the  Did.  Nat.  Biog.          "  20  Jan.  13t«.  (grantee  of  the  manor)      ^^^^^_^^l  ^^  ^,^^^^ 

'  Lipscomb,  in  his  account  of  the  family  of  France  (plaintiff) 


49  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

nadgairs  le  manoir  de  Wendouere  deuers  la  dite  Gile  par  juggement  rendu 
sur  brief  de  Scire  facias  *  en  la  chancellerie  nostre  seignur  le  Roi  e  deins  le 
proces  record  e  rendre  du  dit  juggement  diuerses  errours  auiendrent.  Plese 
a  nostre  dit  seignur  le  Roi  e  son  conseil  de  faire  venir  les  ditz  record  e  proces 
en  parlement  e  auxint  la  dite  Gile  e  son  conseil  dassigner  les  errours  susditz 
qe  lei  e  reson  lui  ent  soient  faites.  Qua  peticione  in  parliamento  audita 
dictum  fuit  per  Magnates  et  alios  de  consilio  Regis  in  dicto  parliamento 
existentes  Episcopo  Eliensi  Cancellario  '  Regis  quod  venire  faciat  recordum 
et  processmn  unde  in  dicta  peticione  fit  mencio  hie  in  parliamento  predicto, 
qui  eadem  recordum  et  processum  ibidem  deferri  fecit  quorum  tenor  sequi- 
tur  in  hec  verba.  Dominus  Rex  mandavit  breve  suum  in  hec  verba. 
Edwardus  dei  gracia  Rex  Anglie  Dominus  Hibernie  et  Aquitanie  vicecomiti 
Buk'  salutem.  Cum  in  tractatu  pacis  inter  nos  et  Johannem  nuper  Regem 
Francie  facte  et  per  nos  jurate  *  inter  cetera  contineatur  quod  cum  omnia 
terre  tenementa  et  possessiones  alienigenarum  de  potestate  Francie  in 
manmn  nostram  occasione  guerre  Francie  nuper  capta  prefatis  alienigenis 
restituantur:^  et  jam  ex  parte  Roberti  de  Fiennes  de  Francia  nobis  est  sup- 
plicatum  ut  cum  Robertus  filius  Willelmi  de  Fiennes  defunctus  auunculus 
suus  seisitus  fuisset  in  dominico  suo  ut  de  feodo  de  manerio  de  Wendouere 
cum  pertinenciis  in  comitatu  predicto  die  quo  manerium  illud  occasione 
guerre  predicte  seisitum  fuit  in  manum  nostram ;  velimus  manerium 
illud  cum  pertinenciis  eidem  Roberto  de  Fiennes  ut  consanguineo  et  heredi 
predicti  Roberti  filii  Willelmi  juxta  formam  et  effectum  pacis  predicte  lib- 
erari  jubere:  nos  volentes  eidem  Roberto  de  Fiennes  plenam  et  celerem  "• 
justiciara  fieri  in  hac  parte  juxta  formam  pacis  predicte  et  prout  ad  hoc 
vinculo  juramenti  tenemur  tibi  precipimus  quod  scire  facias  Egidie  que  fuit 
uxor  Johannis  de  MoIjtis  que  dictum  manerium  tenet  ut  dicitur  quod  sit  in 
Cancellaria  nostra  in  Octabis  sancti  Michaelis  proxime  futuris  "  ubicun- 
que  tunc  fuerit '-  ad  ostendendum  si  quid  pro  se  habeat  vel  dicere  sciat 
quare  manerium  predictmii  cum  pertinenciis  in  manum  nostram  restimi  et 
prefato  Roberto  de  Fiennes  ut  consanguineo  "  et  propinquiori  heredi  ejus- 

'  "  A  wTit  judicial,  most  commonly  to  treaty.     "  Item,    concordat  um   est    quod 

call  a  man  to  shew  cause  to  the  court  terrae  bannitorum  et  adhaerentium,  unius 

whence  it  issues  why  execution  of  a  judg-  partis  et  altcrius,   et  ctiam  ecclesiarum, 

ment  passed  should  not  be  made  out.    The  unius  regni  et  alterius,  et  quod  omnes  ilii 

writ  is  not  granted  until  a  year  and  a  qui  sunt  cxhaereditati  aut  detrusi  a  terris 

daj-  be  elapsed  after  a  judgment  given."  suis    vel    haereditatibus  .  .  .  aut    aliter 

J.    Cowel,     Interpreter,    ed.     1701,     sub  gravati  qualiteroumque,  causa  istius  guer- 

"  Scire."  rae,  restituantur  intcgre  in  eisdcm  jure  et 

'  Simon  Langham,  bishop  of  Ely,  1362-  possessione  quae  habuerunt  ante  guerram 

66;   chancellor,  1363-66,  afterwards  arch-  inceptam:    et    quod   omnimoda   forisfac- 

bishop  of  Canterburj-.  turae,  delicta  et  misprisiones  facta  per  eos, 

•  Treaty  of  Brdtigny,  8  May,  1360,  vel  per  eorum  aliquem,  medio  tempore, 
confirmed  by  King  Edward,  24  Oct.  1.360.  sint  ex  toto  remissa ;  et  quod  ista  fiant 
T.  Rymer,  Foedera  (Ed.  1825),  III,  i,  pp.  citius  quo  poterit  lx)no  modo,  et  ad  ulti- 
490,  518.  mum,  infra  unum  annum  proxinium  post 

•  This  refers  to   §  26  of   the  original  Rex  reccdet  de  Calesio."     Fadcra,  1.  s.  c. 


MOLYNS   V.   FIENNES  49 

manor  of  Wciulovero  against  tlie  saiil  Ciill  l)y  jiidnnionl  delivered  on  a  writ 
of  scire  facias  "  in  tlie  chanccrj'  of  our  loril  tiio  i\ing  and  in  tiie  process  record 
and  delivery  of  the  said  judgment  there  were  divers  errors,  may  it  please 
our  said  lord  the  king  and  his  council  to  cause  the  said  record  and  process  to 
bo  brought  into  iiarlianient  and  also  the  said  Gil!  and  her  counsel  to  assign 
the  errors  aforesaid  that  law  and  reason  may  be  done  her  therein."  Which 
petition  having  been  hoard  in  parliaiuont,  it  was  said  bj'  the  magnates  and 
others  of  the  king's  council  being  in  the  said  parliament  to  the  Bishop  of 
Ely  the  king's  chancellor  '  that  he  should  bring  the  record  and  the  process 
whereof  mention  is  made  in  the  said  petition  here  into  the  parliament  afore- 
said. The  chancellor  caused  the  same  record  and  process  to  be  brought 
down  there,  the  tenour  of  which  follows  in  these  words.  "  The  lord  the  king 
has  commanded  his  writ  (to  issue)  in  these  words.  Edward  by  the  grace  of 
God  King  of  ICngland,  Lord  of  Ireland  and  of  Acjuitaine  to  the  sheriff  of 
Bucks  Greeting.  Whereas  in  the  treaty  of  the  peace  made  between  us  and 
John  late  king  of  France  and  sworn  to  by  us  '  it  is  among  other  things  con- 
tained that  all  lands  tenements  and  possessions  of  aliens  born  of  the  realm 
of  France  lately  taken  into  our  hand  by  occasion  of  the  French  war  should 
be  restored  to  the  aforesaid  aliens-born,'  and  now  a  petition  has  been  made 
to  us  on  behalf  of  Robert  de  Fiennes  of  France  setting  forth  that  whereas 
Robert,  his  deceased  uncle,  son  of  William  de  Fiennes,  was  seized  in  his 
demesne  as  of  fee  of  the  manor  of  Wendovere  with  appurtenances  in  the 
count}''  aforesaid  on  the  daj'  on  which  that  manor  by  occasion  of  the  war 
aforesaid  was  seized  into  our  hand.  We  will  and  command  that  the  manor 
with  its  appurtenances  be  delivered  to  the  same  Robert  de  Fiennes  as  cousin 
and  heir  of  the  aforesaid  Robert  the  son  of  William  according  to  the  form 
and  effect  of  the  peace  aforesaid.  We  willing  that  full  and  prompt'"  justice 
be  done  in  this  behalf  to  the  same  Robert  de  Fiennes  according  to  the  form 
of  the  peace  aforesaid  and  as  we  are  tied  by  bond  of  oath  thereto  charge 
you  that  you  notify  Gill  late  wife  of  John  de  Molyns  who  holds  the  said 
manor,  as  it  is  said,  that  she  be  in  our  chancery  in  the  Octave  of  St.  Michael 
next  coming  "  wheresoever  it  shall  then  be  '^  to  shew  if  she  has  or  can  say 
why  the  manor  aforesaid  together  with  its  appurtenances  ought  not  to  be 
resumed  into  our  hand  and  be  released  to  the  aforementioned  Robert  de 
Fiennes  as  cousin  "  and  nearer  heir  of  the  same  Robert  son  of  William 

"  See  last  note.    Edward  Illleft  France  Society),    1888,   p.   xiii.      I.   S.   Leadam, 

early  in  November,  1300,  after  the  ratifi-  Select  cases  in  the  Star  Chamber  (Selden 

cation  of  the  Treaty.     The  execution  of  Society,  1903),  p.  xvi. 
this  provision  was  therefore  more   than  "  A  translation  of  the  Enghsh  "  cousin," 

three  years  overdue.  which  "  the  word  seems  to  have  been  often 

"  6  October,  1365.  taken   to  represent.  ...     It   ('  cousin  ') 

"  That  part  of  the  curia  regis  wliidi  was  very  frequently  applied  to  a  nephew 

eventually     became    the    judicial     body  or  niece "    (Oxford  Engl.  Did.).     Robert 

known  as  "  The  King  in  Council  "  retained  de  Fiennes  of  France  was,  in  fact,  nephew 

the  formula   "  ul)icumque."     See  F.   W.  of  Rol)ert  de  Fiennes  as  heir  of  whom  he 

Maitland,  Select  Pleas  of  the  Crown  (Selden  was  claiming. 


50  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

dem  Roberti  filii  Willielmi  juxta  formam  pads  predicte  liberari  non  debeat 
et  ad  faciendum  ulterius  et  recipiendum  quod  Curia  nostra  considerauerit 
in  hac  parte.  Et  habeas  ibi  nomina  illorum  per  quos  ei  scire  feceris  et  hoc 
breve.  Teste  me  ipso  apud  j'e.shampsted  "  primo  die  Septembris  anno 
regni  nostri  tricesuno  octauo  '*  —  per  literam  de  secreto  sigillo.'^  Ad  quem 
diem  tam  predicta  Egidia  per  premonicionem  "  ei  per  vicecomitem  predic- 
tmu  juxta  formam  breuis  predicti  factam  et  in  Cancellariam  Regis  retor- 
natam  per  Thomam  de  Middelton  '*  attornatmw  suum  quam  predictus 
Robertas  de  Fiennes  de  Francia  per  Michaelem  Skilh-ng ''  attornatiun 
suum  veniunt  et  quesitum  est  a  prefato  Roberto  de  Fiennes  de  Francia 
qualiter  ipse  est  consanguineus  et  heres  predicti  Roberti  filii  Willehni  qui 
dicit  quod  ipse  est  filius  Willehni  de  Fiennes  fratris  predicti  Roberti  filii 
Willehni  et  sic  est  consanguineus  et  heres  predicti  Roberti  de  Fiennes 
et  petit  executionem  juxta  fonnam  brevis  predicti.  Et  predicta  Egidia 
dicit  quod  quidam  finis  quondam  leuauit^"  videhcet  in  quindena  sancti 
Johannis  Baptiste  anno  regni  Regis  Edwardi  tercii  a  conquestu  quartode- 
cimo  -'  inter  Johannem  de  jMoIj'us  Chiualer  et  prefatam  Egidiam  uxorem 
ejus  querentes  et  Robertum  de  la  Haye  personam  ecclesie  de  Dachet  ^^ 
deforciantem  de  eodem  manerio  de  Wendouere  per  quem  quidem  finem 
predictus  Johannes  recognouit  predictum  manerium  esse  jus  ipsius  Roberti 
ut  illud  quod  idem  Robertus  habuit  de  dono  predicti  Johannis  et  pro  hac 
recognicione  fine  et  concordia  idem  Robertus  concessit  predictis  Johanni 
et  Egidie  predictum  manerium  cum  pertinenciis  et  illud  eis  reddidit  in 
eadem  Curia  habendum  et  tenendum  eisdem  Johanni  et  Egidie  ad  totam 
vitam  ipsorum  Johannis  et  Egidie  et  post  decessum  ipsorum  Johannis  et 
Egidie  predictmn  manerium  cum  pertinenciis  integre  remaneret  Johanni 
fiUo  eorundem  Johannis  et  Egidie  et  heredibus  de  corpore  suo  procreatis. 
Et  si  contingat  quod  idem  Johannes  fihus  predictorum  Johannis  et  Egidie 
obierit  sine  herede  de  corpore  suo  procreate  tunc  predictum  manerium 
remaneret  Willelmo  fratri  ejusdem  Johannis  fihi  predictorum  Johannis  et 
Egidie  et  heredibus  de  corpore  suo  exeuntibus.  Et  si  dictus  Willclmus 
obierit  sine  herede  de  corpore  suo  procreato  tunc  predictum  manerium 
rectis  heredibus  predicti  Johannis  remaneret.^  Et  profert  hie  partem  finis 
qui  hoc  testatur.    Et  dicit  quod  predictus  Johannes  de  Molyns  mortuus 

"  I.  e.    Easthampstead    in    Berkshire,  penalty."     I.  S.  Leadam,  Select  Cases  in 

three  miles  southeast  of  Wokingham.    It  the  Star  Chamber  (Selden  Society,  1903), . 

was  a  royal   hunting-box,   to  which   the  p.  xxi.    For  the  earliest  subpoena,  issuing 

kings  resorted  in  the  summer.    "  A  sandy  upon   a   bill  addressed  to  the  king  and 

and   barren   heath   of  great  extent  even  council,  see  Sir  F.  Palgrave,  The  King's 

within  living  memory."    W.  Lyon,  Chroni-  Council  (1834),  p.  131. 

cles  of  Finchampstcad  (1895),  p.  4.     D.  &  "  Writs  of  premunire  were  issued  on 

S.  Lysons,  Magna  Britannia  (1806),  i,  285.  suggestions  filed  lieforc  the  council.    An 

"  1  September,  1364.  example  of  one,  including  the  clause  of 

"  "A  summons  for  appearance  under  subpoena,  is  to  be  seen  on  p.  43. 

Privy  Seal,  whether  it  took  the  more  man-  "  The  name  of  Middleton  occurs  in  the 

datory  form  of  a  writ  (breve)  or  that  of  a  list  of  counsel  shewn  by  the  Year  Hooks  to 

letter     (litere),     at     first     expressed     no  have  practised  in  the  courts  in  the  reign  of 


MOLYNS   V.   FIENNES  50 

according  to  the  form  of  the  peace  aforesaid,  and  further  to  do  and  receive 
what  our  court  shall  adjudge  in  this  belialf.  And  jou  are  to  have  there  the 
names  of  those  by  whom  you  notify  her  and  this  writ.  Witness  myself  at 
Easthanipstead  "  on  the  first  day  of  September  in  the  thirty-eighth  year 
of  our  reign.'*    By  letter  of  privy  seal."  " 

On  that  day  both  the  aforesaid  Gill,  on  notice  "  to  her  given  by  the 
sheriff  aforesaid  according  to  the  fonu  of  the  writ  aforesaid  made  and  re- 
turned into  the  king's  chancery,  comes  into  court  by  Thomas  of  Middelton  " 
her  attorney  as  also  does  the  aforesaid  Robert  de  Fiennes  of  France  by 
Michael  Skillyng  "  his  attorney.  The  aforesaid  Robert  de  Fiennes  of 
France  is  asked  how  he  is  cousin  and  heir  of  the  aforesaid  Robert  son  of 
William.  He  says  that  he  is  son  of  William  de  Fiennes  brother  of  the  afore- 
said Robert  the  son  of  William  and  so  is  cousin  and  heir  of  the  aforesaid 
Robert  de  Fiennes  and  asks  execution  according  to  the  form  of  the  writ 
aforesaid.  And  the  aforesaid  Gill  says  that  a  certain  fine  was  formerly 
levied,-"  to  wit,  in  the  quindene  of  St.  John  Baptist  in  the  fourteenth  year  of 
the  reign  of  King  Edward  the  third  from  the  Conquest  2'  between  John  de 
Molyns  knight  and  the  aforesaid  Gill  his  wife  and  Robert  de  la  Haye, 
parson  of  the  church  of  Dachet,"  deforciant,  touching  the  same  manor  of 
Wendovere.  By  this  fine  the  aforesaid  John  acknowledged  the  aforesaid 
manor  to  be  the  right  of  him,  Robert,  as  being  that  which  the  same  Robert 
had  as  the  gift  of  the  aforesaid  John,  and  for  this  acknowledgement,  fine  and 
concord  the  same  Robert  granted  to  the  aforesaid  John  and  Gill  the  afore- 
said manor  with  appurtenances  and  delivered  it  to  them  in  the  same  court 
to  have  and  to  hold  to  the  same  John  and  Gill  for  the  whole  of  their  lives 
and  that  after  their  decease  the  aforesaid  manor  with  appurtenances  should 
in  its  entirety  pass  in  remainder  to  John  son  of  the  same  John  and  Gill  and 
to  the  heirs  procreated  of  his  body.  And  if  it  happen  that  the  same  John 
son  of  the  aforesaid  John  and  Gill  shall  die  without  an  heir  procreated  of  his 
body,  then  the  aforesaid  manor  should  pass  in  remainder  to  William  brother 
of  the  same  John  son  of  the  aforesaid  John  and  Gill  and  to  the  i-ssue  of  his 
body.  And  if  the  said  William  shall  die  without  an  heir  procreated  of  his 
body,  then  the  aforesaid  manor  should  pass  in  remainder  to  the  right  heir 
of  the  aforesaid  John.^'  And  he  produces  here  the  part  of  the  fine  which  is 
evidence  of  this.    And  he  says  that  the  aforesaid  John  de  Molyns  died  and 

Edward  III.    E.  Foss,  Lives  of  the  Judges  "  "  In  this  last  species  of  fine,  the  cog- 

(1851),  iii,  374.  nizee,  after  the  right  is  acknowledged  to  be 

"  The   name   of   SkilljTig  or   Skylling  in  him,  grants  back  again,  or  renders  to 

similarly  appears.     Foss,  ibid.  the  cognizor  .  .  .  some  other  estate  in  the 

'"  The  common  phrase  on  the  rolls  of  premises."     Sir  W.  Blackstone,  Commen- 

Edward  I  seems  to  be  "  et  finis  levavit  lanes  (2d  cd.  1767),  ii,  353.    This  feoff- 

[nol   levavit   se)   inter  eos."     Pollock   &  ment  of  a  manor  held  in  chief,  being  with- 

Maitland,  Hist,  of  Eng.  Laic   (1895),   ii,  out  license  first  obtained,  was  liable  to 

97,  n.  5.               "  8  July,  1340.  penalty  which  the  king  by  Letters  Patent 

»  Now  Datchet,  South  Bucks,  a  mile  of  20  .July,  1340,  remitted.    Pat.  Rolls,  14 

East  of  Windsor.  Ed.  Ill,  pt.  iii,  m.  54,  p.  9. 


51  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING's    COUNCIL 

est  et  Johannes  filius  predictonmi  Johannis  et  Egidie  mortuus  est  sine 
her  ede  de  corpore  suo  procreate  et  sic  tenet  ipsa  Egidia  predictum  ma- 
nerium  ad  terminum  vite  sue  post  cujus  mortem  predictimi  manerium 
Willelmo  fratri  predict!  Johannis  fihi  eorundem  Johannis  de  Moh-ns  et 
Egidie  remanere  debet,  quiquidem  Willehuus  est  fiUus  et  heres  predicti 
Johannis  de  MoIjtis,  et  sic  tam  feodimi  simplex  quam  taUiatum  in  persona 
predicti  Willehni  existit  sine  quo  ipsa  Egidia  non  potest  de  jure  respondere 
et  petit  auxiUum  de  predicto  Willehiio  ^^  et  quod  premuniatur.  Et  Robertus 
de  Fiennes  de  Francia  per  ^lichaelem  SkylljTig  attornatum  suum  dicit  quod 
Rex  juxta  tractatum  pacis  predicte  absque  alio  processu  potest  et  tenetur 
prefato  Roberto  de  Fiennes  dictum  manerium  restituere.  Set  ut  sciri  posset 
si  prefata  Egidia  aUquod  jus  habuisset  ad  excludendum  prefatum  Robertum 
de  Fiennes  ab  actione  de  dicto  manerio,  idem  Rex  de  curialitate  sua  con- 
cessit breve  predictum  versus  prefatam  Egidiam  de  habendo  finalem  re- 
sponsionem  super  declaracionem  juris  sui  predicti  et  non  ad  alium  effectum 
emanauit  breve  iUud  et  sic  in  execucione  istius  breuis  fundati  super  pacem 
predictam  quam  Rex  vinculo  juramenti  tenetur  obseruare,  et  infra  unum 
annum  a  tempore  reformacionis  ejusdem  pacis  complere,  non  requiritur 
talis  processus  de  auxilio  petendo  aut  aliis  dilatoriis  sicut  in  aUis  breuibus 
ad  communem  legem.^=  Et  simihter  quoddam  aliud  breue  de  scire  facias 
prosecutum  est  versus  prefatum  Willekuum  de  Molyns  de  manerio  predicto 
qui  placitando  allegauit  se  non  esse  tenentem  manerii  predicti  nee  aliquid 
habere  in  manerio  predicto  nisi  in  le  remanere  post  mortem  dicte  Egidie 
juxta  formam  finis  predicti  nee  ad  breue  illud  respondere  teneri.  Et  que- 
situm  est  ab  eodem  Willelmo  si  se  pro  saluacione  juris  sui  in  hac  parte 
prefate  Egidie  jungere  voluit,  qui  hoc  facere  omnino  recusauit.  Et  sic  dicit 
idem  Robertus  de  Fiennes  quod  auxiUum  petitimi  non  est  in  isto  casu  con- 
cedendum,  per  quod  ex  causis  premissis  et  aliis  dictum  est  eidem  Egidie 
quod  respondeat  sine  auxiho  ejusdem  Willelmi  de  Molyns  si  sibi  viderit 
expedire.  Et  predicta  Egidia  protestando  ^^  quod  non  cognoscit  quod  pre- 
dictus  Robertus  de  Fiennes  de  Francia  sit  consanguineus  vel  de  sanguine 
Roberti  filii  Willehni  de  Fiennes  nee  quod  predictum  manerium  seisitum 
fuit  in  manum  domini  Regis  occasione  guerre  dicit  quod  predictus  Robertus 
de  Fiennes  qui  nunc  sequitur  natus  fuit  tempore  Edwardi  patris  Regis  nunc 
extra  ligianciam  Anglie  et  non  infra  et  hoc  pretendit  verificare  et  petit  judi- 
cium si  idem  Robertus  de  Fiennes  de  Francia  ut  heres  alicujus  execucionem" 
habere  debeat,  maxima  cum  hoc  contra  legem  Anglie  hactenus  usitatam  et 

»  This  is  the  "  aid-praycr."  "  In  Utiga-  to  '  pray  aid  '  of  B,  to  get  B  made  a  party 

tion  the  tenant  for  hfe  represents  the  land.  to  the  action,  and  B  in  his  own  interest  will 

Suppose,  for  example,  that  A  is  holding  the  takeuponhimself  the  defense  of  his  rights." 

land  as  tenant  for  life  by  some  title  under  P.  and  M.  Hist.  Eng.  Lair,  ii,  10.     Cf .  The 

which  on  his  death  the  land  will  revert  or  Eyre  of  Kent,  i,  92  (Seld.  Soc.  1910).     "Si 

remain  to  B  in  fee.   Now  if  X  sets  up  an  vidua  dotatadelibertateutdeWarenna vel 

adverse  title,  it  is  A,  not  B,  whom  he  must  hujusmodi  si  inde  calumpnietur,  petet  aux- 

attack.  When  A  issued,  it  will  be  his  duty  iUum  de  herede  4c." 


MOLYNS    V.   FIENNES  51 

John  the  son  of  the  aforesaid  John  and  Gill  died  without  an  heir  proereated 
of  his  body  and  so  C!ill  herself  holds  the  aforesaid  manor  for  the  term  of  her 
life,  after  whose  death  the  aforesaid  manor  ought  to  pass  in  remainder  to 
William  hrofher  of  tlie  aforesaid  John  son  of  the  same  John  de  Molyns  and 
Gill,  which  William  is  indeed  son  and  heir  of  the  aforesaid  John  de  Molyns, 
and  so  as  well  the  fee  simple  as  the  fee  tail  is  in  the  person  of  the  aforesaid 
William  apart  from  whom  Gill  herself  can  not  answer  of  right  and  prays  aid 
of  the  aforesaid  William  ■*  and  that  a  premunire  be  issued.  And  Robert  de 
Fiennes  of  France  by  Michael  Skyllyng  his  attorney  says  that  the  king 
according  to  the  treaty  of  peace  aforesaid  without  other  process  is  able  and 
is  bound  to  restore  the  said  manor  to  Robert  de  Fiennes.  But  that  it  might 
be  known  if  the  aforementioned  Gill  had  any  right  to  bar  the  aforemen- 
tioned Rol)ert  de  Fiennes  from  action  touching  the  said  manor,  the  same 
king  out  of  his  courtesy  granted  the  writ  aforesaid  against  the  aforemen- 
tioned Gill  for  having  a  final  answer  upon  the  declaration  of  his  right  afore- 
said and  issued  that  writ  for  no  other  purpose  and  so  in  execution  of  this 
writ  founded  upon  the  peace  aforesaid  which  the  king  by  the  bond  of  an 
oath  is  bound  to  observe  and  within  one  year  from  the  time  of  the  restora- 
tion of  the  same  peace  to  fulfil,  there  is  no  need  for  such  process  of  praying 
aid  or  other  dilatory  pleas  as  in  other  writs  at  the  common  law.^^  And  like- 
wise a  certain  other  writ  of  scire  facias  was  sued  out  against  the  aforemen- 
tioned William  de  Molyns  touching  the  manor  aforesaid,  who  in  his  plea 
alleged  that  he  was  not  himself  tenant  of  the  manor  aforesaid  and  that  he 
had  nothing  in  the  manor  aforesaid  save  in  remainder  after  the  death  of  the 
said  Gill  according  to  the  fonn  of  the  fine  aforesaid  and  that  he  is  not 
bound  to  make  answer  to  that  writ.  And  the  same  William  was  asked 
whether  to  save  his  right  in  this  behalf  he  was  wilUng  to  plead  jointly  with 
the  aforementioned  Gill,  which  he  utterly  refused  to  do.  And  so  the  same 
Robert  de  Fiennes  says  that  the  aid  prayed  is  in  this  case  not  to  be  granted, 
wherefore  from  the  causes  premised  and  from  others  the  same  Gill  was  told 
to  answer  without  aid  of  the  same  WilUam  de  Moljais  if  she  should  think 
fit.  And  the  aforesaid  Gill  protesting  ^'  that  she  does  not  know  that  the 
aforesaid  Robert  de  Fiennes  of  France  is  a  cousin  or  of  the  blood  of  Robert 
the  son  of  William  de  Fiennes,  nor  that  the  aforesaid  manor  was  seized  into 
the  hand  of  the  lord  the  king  by  occasion  of  the  war,  saj's  that  the  aforesaid 
Robert  de  Fiennes  who  now  sues  was  born  in  the  time  of  Edward  father  of 
the  king  that  now  is  out  of  the  liegeance  of  England  and  not  within  it  and 
this  he  offers  to  prove  and  asks  judgment  whether  the  same  Robert  de 
Fiennes  of  France  ought  to  have  execution  "  as  any  one's  heir,  especiaUy 
since  this  would  manifestly  be  contrary  to  the  law  of  England  hitherto  used 

"  A  reason  why  this  was  a  case  for  the  to  do,  that  issue  can  not  be  joined  by  it." 

council.  Cowel,  InUrjrrdcr,  s.  v. 

"  "  Protestation  is  a  defence  of  safe-  "  "  An  execution   final   is  that  which 

guard  to  the  party  which  maketh  it  from  .  .  .  extendeth  his  (the  defendant's)  lands, 

being  concluded  by  the  act  he  is  about  anddelivereth  them  to  the  plaintiff."  Ibid. 


52  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

approbatam  foret  manifeste.  Et  predictus  Robertas  de  Fiennes  dicit  quod 
omnes  de  utroque  regnorum  Anglie  et  Francie  qui  oceasione  guerrarum  pre- 
dictarum  exheredati  fuerunt  de  terris  et  hereditatibus  suis  in  eisdem  juribus 
et  possessionibus  que  ante  incepcionem  guerrarum  predictarum  ^*  habue- 
runt  per  pacem  predictam  integre  restitui  debent,  et  sic  restitucio  ilia  ad 
alienigenas  utruisque  regni  se  extendit,  que  quidem  pax  per  Regem  Prelatos 
et  Magnates  accommunitatem  regni  Anglie  in  pleno  parliamento  confirmata 
et  jurata  fuit,  et  dicit  quod  manerium  predictum  oceasione  guerrarum  pre- 
dictarum et  non  ex  alia  causa  ad  manum  Regis  deuenit  et  quod  predictus 
Robertus  de  Fiennes  est  heres  prefati  Robert!  filii  Willelmi  per  cujus 
Roberti  de  Fiennes  adhesionem  parti  aduerse  domini  Regis  dictum  mane- 
rium captum  fuit  in  manum  Regis,  et  ex  quo  id  quod  per  pacem  predictam 
per  Reges  utriusque  regni  pro  conununi  utilitate  regnorum  predictorum  et 
rei  publice  concordatiun  est,  non  per  legem  communem  Anglie,  set  secun- 
dum vim  et  intencionem  pacis  predicte  deduci  debet  et  terminari,  maxime 
cum  predicta  Egidia  nullum  titulum  juris  in  persona  sua  ad  excludendmn 
predictum  Robertum  de  Fiennes  de  Fraucia  ab  accione  sua  ostendit,  et  in 
voluntate  domini  Regis  existit  admit  tendi  de  gracia  sua  alienigenas  ad  here- 
ditates  suas  habendas  in  regno  Anglie  sicut  temporibus  retroactis  fieri  con- 
sueuit,  et  petit  quod  dictum  manerimn  in  manum  Regis  capiatur,  et  prefato 
Roberto  de  Fiennes  de  Francia  ut  consanguineo  et  heredi  predicti  Roberti 
filii  Willelmi  juxta  formam  pacis  predicte  restituatur.  Et  quia  predicte 
negocio  coram  domino  Rege  et  Magnatibus  et  aliis  de  consilio  suo  deducto 
et  examinato  per  ipsum  Regem  recordatiun  est  predictum  Robertum  de 
Fiennes  de  Francia  esse  consanguineum  et  heredem  predicti  Roberti  filii 
Willelmi  per  cujus  forsifacturam  Manerium  predictum  oceasione  guer- 
rarum predictarum  et  non  alia  de  causa  ad  manus  ipsius  Regis  deuenit  et 
per  dictum  Regem  et  omnes  Magnates  et  alios  de  consilio  ipsius  Regis  sibi 
assistentes  concordatum  fuit  quod  tractatus  pacis  predictus  in  omnibus  suis 
articulis  obseruetur  et  teneatur  et  execucioni  demandetur  allegacionibus 
predictis  non  obstantibus,  quod  licet  fiat  in  hoc  casu  speciali  pro  reforma- 
cione  pacis  observande  juxta  vim  effectum  et  intencionem  ejusdem  pacis 
juri  tamen  communi  in  aliis  casibus  nullatenus  derogatur,  per  quod  consid- 
eratum  est  quod  Manerium  predictum  in  manum  Regis  seisiatur  et  prefato 
Roberto  de  Fiennes  de  Francia  ut  consanguineo  et  heredi  predicti  Roberti 
fiUi  Willelmi  juxta  formam  pacis  predicte  restituatur,  et  preceptum  est 
vicecomiti  Buk'  quod  Manerium  predictum  cum  pertinenciis  in  manum 
Regis  sine  dilacione  seisiri  et  illud  custodiri  faciat  quousqc  aliud  a  Rege  inde 
habuerit  in  mandatis.  Quibus  recordo  et  processu  cum  peticione  pre- 
dicta visis  et  examinatis  ac  inspecto  irrotulamento  carte  per  quam  dictus 

"  Active  hostilities  began  in  September,      by  Edward  III.    Political  History  of  Eng- 
1339,  with  the  invasion  of  the  Cambr&is      land  (T.  F.  Tout),  vol.  iii,  p.  339. 


MOLYNS  V.  FIENNES  52 

and  approved.    And  the  aforesaid  Robert  dc  Fiennes  says  that  all  persons 
of  either  of  the  realms  of  Englanil  and  France  who  have  been  by  occasion  of 
the  wars  aforesaid  disinherited  of  their  lands  and  hereditaments  ought  by 
the  peace  aforesaid  to  bo  wholly  restored  in  the  same  rights  and  possessions 
as  they  had  before  the  beginning  of  the  wars  aforesaid,-'  and  accordingly 
that  restitution  extends  to  the  aliens-born  of  either  kingdom,  the  which 
peace  was  confirmed  and  sworn  by  the  king,  ])rclates  and  magnates  and 
commonalty  of  the  kingdom  of  England  in  full  parliament,  and  he  says  that 
the  manor  aforesaid  by  occasion  of  the  wars  aforesaid  and  arising  out  of  no 
other  cause  fell  into  the  hand  of  the  king  and  that  the  aforesaid  llobcrt  de 
Fiennes  is  heir  of  the  aforementioned  Robert  son  of  William  and  that  by  the 
adhesion  of  this  Robert  de  Fiennes  to  the  party  opposed  to  the  lord  the  king 
the  said  manor  was  taken  into  the  king's  hand.    And  since  because  by  the 
peace  aforesaid  it  has  been  so  agreed  by  the  kings  of  either  realm  for  the 
common  advantage  of  the  realms  aforesaid  and  of  the  public  weal,  the  claim 
ought  to  be  tried  and  determined,  not  bj-  the  common  law  of  England,  but 
according  to  the  force  and  intent  of  the  peace  aforesaid,  especially  since  the 
aforesaid  Gill  shews  no  legal  title  in  her  own  person  to  exclude  the  aforesaid 
Robert  de  Fiennes  of  France  from  his  action  and  it  is  in  the  will  of  the  lord 
the  king  to  admit  of  his  favour  aliens-born  to  hold  their  hereditaments 
in  the  realm  of  England  as  in  times  past  has  been  customary  to  be  done,  and 
he  praj's  that  the  said  manor  be  taken  into  the  king's  hand  and  restored  to 
the  aforementioned  Robert  de  Fiennes  of  France  as  cousin  and  heir  of  the 
aforesaid  Robert  son  of  William  according  to  the  form  of  the  peace  afore- 
said.   And  because  the  aforesaid  matter  having  been  tried  before  the  lord 
the  king  and  the  magnates  and  others  of  liis  council  and  examined  by  the 
king  liimself  it  was  put  on  record  that  the  aforesaid  Robert  de  Fiennes  of 
France  is  cousin  and  heir  of  the  aforesaid  Robert  son  of  William,  through 
whose  forfeiture  the  manor  aforesaid  by  occasion  of  the  wars  aforesaid  and 
not  from  any  other  cause  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  king  himself,  and  by  the 
said  king  and  all  the  magnates  and  others  of  the  council  of  the  king  in  person 
sitting  as  his  assessors  it  was  agreed  that  the  treaty  of  peace  aforesaid 
should  be  observed  and  holden  in  all  its  articles  and  committed  to  execution, 
the  allegations  aforesaid  notwithstanding;   that  though  it  be  done  in  this 
special  case  for  restoration  of  the  peace,  to  be  observed  according  to  the 
force,  effect  and  intention  of  the  same  peace,  yet  there  is  no  derogation  of 
the  common  law  in  other  cases.    Whereby  it  was  adjudged  that  the  manor 
aforesaid  be  seized  into  the  king's  hand  and  restored  to  the  aforementioned 
Robert  de  Fiennes  of  France  as  cousin  and  heir  of  the  aforesaid  Robert  son 
of  William  according  to  the  form  of  the  peace  aforesaid,  and  a  precept  was 
issued  to  the  sherifT  of  Bucks  for  the  seizure  of  the  manor  with  its  appurte- 
nances forthwith  into  the  king's  hands  and  for  its  custody  till  he  should  have 
another  command  from  the  king  in  that  behalf.    This  record  and  process 
together  with  the  petition  aforesaid  having  been  seen  and  examined,  and 


53  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

Rex  Manerium  predictum  prefato  Johanni  de  Molj^ns  dedit  et  concessit  in 
rotulis  Cancellarie  ipsius  Regis  anno  regni  sui  quartodecimo  irrotulate  "^  in 
qua  continetur  quod  dictus  Rex  Manerium  predictum  cum  pertinenciis 
quod  ad  manus  ipsius  Regis  per  forisfacturam  predicti  Roberti  filii  Willelmi 
pro  eo  quod  idem  Robertus  inimicis  Regis  de  Francia  de  guerra  contra 
ipsum  Regem  adhesit  deuenit,  dedit  et  concessit  prefato  Johanni  de  iSIolyns 
sub  forma  in  eadem  carta  contenta,  et  ex  quo  clare  liquet  per  eandem  car- 
tani  quod  dictum  Manerium  cum  pertinenciis  ad  manus  Regis  causa  guerre 
predicte  ut  predicitur  deuenit  et  juxta  tractatum  pacis  predicte  in  eodem 
parliamento  ostensum,  terre  bannitoriun  et  adherencium  uni  parti  et  alteri 
de  utroque  regno,  et  omnes  illi  qui  causa  guerre  [predicte  ex]  heredati  vel 
de  terris  et  hereditatibus  suis  amoti  fuerunt  in  eisdem  jure  et  possessione 
que  ante  incepcionem  guerre  predicte  habuerunt  integraliter  sunt  restitu- 
endi  et  sic  causa  forisfacture  racione  guerre  predicte  in  utroque  regno  est 
omnino  per  pacem  illam  extincta  et  adnuUata,  dictaque  Egidia  per  placitmn 
suum  non  allegauit  nee  afiirmauit  jus  dicto  domino  Regi  nee  eidem  Egidie 
in  Manerio  predicto  per  aliani  viam  ad  excludendum  prefatum  Robertum 
de  Fiennes  de  accione  sua  ad  dictum  Manerium  per  pacem  predictam  sic 
attributa  accrevisse,  videtur  Magnatibus  et  aliis  peritis'"  de  parliamento 
predicto  quod  nee  per  cartam  predictam  de  dicto  manerio  prefato  Johanni 
de  Molyns  per  dominum  Regem  sic  racione  forisfacture  predicte  factam,  nee 
per  aliqua  aha  per  predictam  Egidiam  superius  allegata  possit  aut  debeat 
execucio  de  hiis  que  sic  in  pace  predicta  continentur  aliqualiter  impediri, 
per  quod  non  habeat  respectum  ad  errores  pretensos  nee  ad  alia  per  dictam 
Egidiam  superius  allegata  per  totum  parliamentum  predictum  consi- 
deratum  est  quod  dictum  Manerium  cum  pertinenciis  in  manum  Regis 
capiatur." 

"  On  12  December,  1339,  Edward  III,  other    manors    "  and    the    farm    which 

being  then  at  Antwerp,  granted  to  John  de  Robert  de  Fienles  (sic)  lately  held  in  the 

Molyns  "  in  recompense  of  the  £100  yearly  town  of  Aylesbury,  with  the  fees  of  Chokes 

at  the  Exchequer  for  the  support  of  his  late  of  John  de  Fienles,"  &c.    (Fat.  R<iUs, 

estate  of  banneret  lately  granted  to  him  12-14,  Ed.  Ill,  m.  5,  p.  402.)     A  fuller 

by  the  king  "  the  manor  of  Wendovre  and  grant,  dated  Westminster,  5  March,   14 


MOLYNS   V.   FIENNES  53 

the  enrolment  of  the  charter  by  which  the  said  king  gave  and  granted  the 
manor  aforesaid  to  the  aforementioned  John  de  Molyns  having  been  in- 
spected in  the  rolls  of  the  chancery  of  the  same  king  enrolled  ^'  in  the  four- 
teenth year  of  his  reign,  in  which  charter  it  is  contained  that  the  said  king 
gave  and  granted  to  the  aforementioned  John  de  Molyns  under  the  form  in 
the  same  charter  contained  the  manor  aforesaid  with  appurtenances  which 
fell  into  the  hands  of  the  same  king  bj'  the  forfeiture  of  the  aforesaid  Robert 
son  of  William  for  that  the  same  Robert  adhered  to  the  king's  enemies  of 
France  at  war  with  the  same  king.  And  since  it  is  clearh-  evident  by  the 
same  charter  that  the  said  manor  with  the  appurtenances  fell  to  the  hands 
of  the  king  by  the  aforesaid  reason  of  the  war  as  is  aforesaid  and  according 
to  the  treaty  of  the  peace  aforesaid  exliibited  in  the  same  parliament,  the 
lands  of  those  banished  and  of  the  adherents  of  the  one  partj'  and  the  other 
of  either  realm  and  all  those  who  because  of  the  war  aforesaid  were  removed 
from  their  right  of  hereditary  succession  or  from  their  lands  and  heredita- 
ments were  to  be  restored  in  full  in  the  same  right  and  possession  that  they 
had  before  the  beginning  of  the  war  aforesaid  and  so  the  cause  of  forfeiture 
by  reason  of  the  war  aforesaid  has  been  whollj'  extinguished  and  annulled 
by  that  peace  in  either  realm.  Moreover,  the  said  Gill  by  her  plea  has 
neither  alleged  nor  affirmed  that  the  right  thus  assigned  accrued  to  the 
said  lord  the  king  nor  to  the  same  Gill  in  the  Manor  aforesaid  by  an}'  other 
way  so  as  to  exclude  the  aforementioned  Robert  de  Fiennes  from  his  action 
for  the  said  manor  by  reason  of  the  peace  aforesaid.  It  appears  (therefore) 
to  the  magnates  and  other  skilled  members '"  of  the  parliament  aforesaid 
that  neither  by  the  charter  aforesaid  touching  the  said  manor  made  to  John 
de  MoljTis  aforementioned  by  the  lord  the  king  by  reason  of  the  forfeiture 
aforesaid  nor  by  any  other  of  the  above  allegations  by  the  aforesaid  Gill  can 
or  ought  the  execution  of  the  terms  contained  in  the  said  peace  in  any  way 
to  be  impeded,  so  that  regard  should  not  be  paid  to  the  errors  set  out,  nor  to 
other  allegations  above  made  by  the  said  Gill.  Judgment  was  given  by 
the  whole  parliament  that  the  said  manor  with  appurtenances  be  taken  into 
the  king's  hand." 

Ed.  Ill  (1340)  was  probably  that  referred  435;   of.  10  and  25  April,  1340,  ibid.  468, 

to  here,  for  it  expressly  recites  that  the  469  and  21  June,  1340,  ibid.  p.  549. 

manor  of  Wendovre,  county  Buckingham,  '"  As  to  these  see  Selerl  cases  in  Ihe  Star 

with  other  property,   "  escheats  because  Chamber  (Seld.  Soc.  1903),  pp.  xx.w-xlviii. 

John  and  Robert  de  Fienles  adhered  to  ''  As  to  the  subsequent  history  of  the 

the  king's  enemies,  the  French,"  ibid.  p.  manor,  see  p.  Ixxxiii,  supra. 


54 


CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 


UGHTRED  AND  OTHERS  v.  MUSGRAVE ' 

1366  Peticiones  et  processus  facti  contra  Thomam  de  Musgraue  ^  \'icecoini- 
tem  Eboracensem  per  Thomam  de  Ughtred  ^  et  alios  in  quindena  Pasche 
anno  regni  Regis  Edwardi  tercii  quadragesimo/ 

Memorandmn  quod  dominus  Rex  misit  coram  consilio  suo  per  Johannem 
de  la  Lee  *  Senescallum  hospicii  sui  diuersas  billas  sibi  liberatas  que  sequn- 
tur  etc.  ut  consilium  inde  fieri  faciat  quod  iustum  fuerit  etc. 


[Ce]s  sont  les  greuaunces  et  malices  faitz  a  Thomas  Ughtred  Chiualer 
par  monsieur  Thomas  IMusegraue  viscounte  Deuerwic  lesqueux  greuances 
il  prie  au  Roi  qils  soient  redressez. 

Adeprimes  le  dit  \dcounte  emprisona  le  [dit]  Thomas  Ughtred  sanz  pro- 
ces  de  la  ley  ou  enditement  ou  dascune  manere  dappelle  '  et  sanz  garauntz 
encontre  la  ley,  et  le  dit  viscounte  prist  sur  lui  xiiij  enquestes  '  et  ne  trouast 
nulle  cause  sur  lui  pour  lui  emprisoner,  et  les  Justices  nostre  seignour  le  Roi 
du  pees  et  del  lay  cestassauer  le  sire  de  Percy  *  monsieur  Rauf  de  NeAolle  ' 


'  Parliamentary  and  Council  Proceed- 
ings (Chancery),  file  8,  no.  8,  in  4  mem- 
branes, A,  B,  C,  D. 

2  Thomas  de  Musgrave  was  pricked 
sheriff  of  the  counts-  of  York  on  30  Sep- 
tember, 1359.  On' 21  November,  1360, 
Marmaduke  Conestable  displaced  him; 
but  on  20  November,  1362,  Alusgrave  was 
appointed  sheriff  once  more,  and  remained 
in  office  till  13  May,  1366,  when  Cones- 
table  again  succeeded  him.  After  this 
date,  his  name  does  not  recur.  His  final 
displacement  was,  therefore,  not  improb- 
ably due  to  these  petitions,  to  which  the 
judgment  of  the  council,  though  fragmen- 
tary, appears  to  have  been  favourable. 
The  quindene  of  Easter,  40  Edward  III, 
was  19  April,  1366,  to  which  date  these 
petitions  are  assigned.  If  Musgrave's 
displacement  were  their  consequence,  the 
business  of  the  council  was  expeditiously 
transacted. 

Thomas  Musgrave,  sheriff  of  York,  is 
identified  with  Sir  Thomas  Musgrave, 
Baron  Musgrave,  by  the  author  of  the  life 
of  the  latter  in  the  Diet.  Nat.  Biog.  This 
document,  however,  furnishes  ground  for 
the  conclusion  that  the  sheriff  was  son  of 
his  more  distinguished  father  of  the  same 
names.  For  the  Thomas  Musgrave,  who 
was  "  in  1368  and  subsequent  years  es- 
cheator  for  Yorkshire,  Northumberland, 
Cumberland,  and  Westmorland,"  was,  as 


the  Patent  Rolls  shew,  not  a  knight,  but 
probably  the  sheriff;  whereas  Sir  Thomas 
Musgrave  was  a  soldier,  constantly  em- 
ployed in  the  defence  of  the  border  against 
the  Scots.  In  the  same  membrane  (6)  of 
the  Patent  Rolls  of  44  Ed.  Ill,  pt.  I, 
occurs  the  name  of  "Thomas  de  Musgrave, 
escheator  in  the  county  of  York "  (15 
May)  and  (20  May)  "  Thomas  de  Mus- 
grave, chivaler  " ;  apparently  indicating 
different  persons.  From  this  family  are 
descended  the  Musgraves  of  Edenhall, 
Cumberland. 

'  The  name  of  Ughtred,  of  Scarborough 
and  Catton,  &c..  County  York,  was  one  of 
great  distinction  at  this  time.  The  father 
of  this  petitioner,  Sir  Thomas  Ughtred,  K. 
G.,  was  summoned  to  parliament  as  a 
baron  in  1343  and  1364,  and  had  died  in 
1365.  His  son  and  heir,  already  a  knight, 
became  a  distinguished  commander  both 
in  Scotland,  where  he  was  governor  of 
Lochniabcn  Castle,  and  in  France,  and 
died  in  November,  1401,  but  was  never 
summoned  to  parliament.  Sir  T.  C.  Banks, 
Baronia  Anglica  Concenlrata  (1844),  i, 
440.  G.  E.  Cokayne,  Complete  Peerage 
(1898),  viii,  2.  Tcstamenta  Eboracensia 
(Surtees  Soc),  i,  241  (1836). 

*  Fourteen  days  after  Easter  Sunday, 
which  fell  on  5  April,  1366;  i.e.,  19th  of 
April. 

'  John  de  la  Lee,  or  John  atte  Lee,  was 


UGHTRED  AND  OTHERS  V.   MUSGRAVE 


54 


UGHTRED  AND  OTHERS  v.  MUSGRAVE  > 

1366  Petitions  and  processes  made  against  Thomas  Musgrave,'  sheriff  of 
York,  by  Thomas  Ughtred  '  and  others  on  the  Quindene  of  Easter  in  the 
fortieth  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  the  Third.'' 

Be  it  remembered  that  tlie  lord  the  kiii^  lias  sent  before  his  council  by 
John  de  la  Lee,'  steward  of  his  household,  divers  bills  delivered  to  him,  as 
follow  &c.  that  the  council  may  cause  to  be  done  in  that  behalf  that  which 
shall  be  just  &c. 


[These]  are  the  injuries  and  wrongs  done  to  Thomas  Ughtred,  knight,  by 
master  Thomas  Musgrave  sheriff  of  York,  the  which  injuries  he  prays  the 
king  may  be  redressed. 

First,  the  said  sheriff  imprisoned  the  [said]  Thomas  Ughtred  without  pro- 
cess of  law  or  indictment,  or  of  any  manner  of  appeaP  and  without  warrant 
contrary  to  law,  and  the  said  sheriff  held  fourteen  inquests  against  him,'  and 
found  no  cause  against  him  for  imprisoning  him,  and  the  justices  of  our 
lord  the  king  [both]  of  the  peace  and  of  the  law,  to  wit,  the  lord  Percy,* 

was  employed  from  time  to  time  upon 
special  commissions  issued  to  make  in- 
quisition into  cases  of  violence  as  in 
Northumberland  on  28  Dec.  1363  (ib.  p. 
453),  and  30  Nov.  1364  (ib.  p.  530),  and  on 
a  commission  of  oyer  and  terminer  in 
Dorset  (2  July,  1364,  ib.  p.  544),  though 
I  have  failed  to  find  this  commission.  As 
Percy  was  at  the  head  of  it,  he  was,  per- 
haps, a  lawyer,  and  the  same  as  Henry  de 
Percehay,  who  became  a  king's  serjeant  in 
1365,  a  Baron  of  the  Exchequer  in  1375, 
and  a  Justice  of  the  Common  Pleas  in 
1377.  E.  Foss,  Lives  of  the  Jiulges,  (1854), 
iv,  66.  Foss  identifies  him  with  a  family 
who  were  "  the  possessors  of  Lewesham 
and  other  manors  in  Yorkshire. "  But 
the  style  here  used,  "le  Sire  de  Percy," 
nine  years  before  the  appointment  of  a 
judge  of  the  name,  presents  a  difficulty. 
The  draughtsman  of  the  pleadings  may, 
indeed,  have  awarded  it,  in  forensic  use,  to 
the  commissioner  of  oyer  and  terminer. 
There  was  also  a  Henry  de  Percy,  "  late 
lord  of  Spofford  "  (Spofforth,  Co.  York), 
who  died  some  time  prior  to  15  May,  1368 
{Cat.  Fat.  Rolls,  42  Ed.  Ill,  p.  113).  Lastly, 
there  was  "  the  king's  kinsman,  Henry 
lord  of  Percy,"  ib.  p.  172,  who  died  17 
June,  1368.  He  had  fought  at  Cr6cy,  and 
Neville's  Cross,  and  was  much  employed 


son,  and  heir  of  Geoffrey  de  la  Lee,  of  Al- 
bury,  Herts,  sheriff  of  Essex  and  Herts  in 
1311.  John  de  la  Lee  sat  for  the  county, 
as  John  atte  Lee,  in  the  parliament  of  1355 
and  died  in  1370.  He  is  not  entered  on 
the  roll  as  a  knight.  J.  E.  Cussans,  Hist, 
of  Hertfordshire  (1873-77),  Hundred  of 
Edvnnstree,  p.  148. 

*  "  Accusation  or  Appeal  is  a  lawful 
Declaration  of  another  man's  Crime 
(which  by  Bracton  must  be  Felony  at  the 
least)  before  a  competent  Judge  by  one 
that  setteth  his  name  to  the  Declaration, 
and  undertakes  to  prove  it  upon  the 
penalty  that  may  ensue  of  the  contrary." 
J.  Cowell,  Interpreter  (ed.  1701),  s.  v. 
Appeal. 

'  See  Introduction,  p.  Ixxxv,  supra. 

'  Henry  of  Percy,  Percehay,  Pcrshay 
&c.  was  placed  on  the  comrai.ssion  of  the 
peace  for  the  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire 
on  21  March,  1361,  together  with  Ralph 
Nevill,  Thomas  Mosegrave,  and  William 
Fynchesdcn,  all  of  whose  names  figure  in 
these  proceedings.  {Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  35  Ed. 
Ill,  p.  64.)  A  person  of  the  same  names 
was  nominated  on  the  same  day  to  the 
commission  of  the  peace  for  Somerset. 
Henry  Percy  was  also  placed  on  the  com- 
mission for  Northumberland  on  20  Nov. 
1362  (Fat.  RolU,  36  Ed.  Ill,  p.  292).    He 


55 


CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 


monsieur  Johan  de  Moubray  "•  monsieur  William  de  Fj-nchesdene  "  et  Roger 
de  Fulthorpe  "  pristrent  vij  enquestes  des  Chiualers  et  des  seriantz  mieuth 
veillantz  en  la  pays,"  et  ne  pourroient  rien  trouer  sur  le  dit  Thomas 
Ughtred  pour  lui  emprisoner;  et  la  ou  le  dit  Thomas  Ughtred  auoit  brief  as 
Justices  auantditz  pour  aler  a  sa  deliueraunce  "  come  la  ley  voet,  le  dit 
viscounte  la  desturba  par  malice,  qil  ne  pourroit  estre  deHuerez. 

Item  le  dit  viscounte  ne  voleit  deliuerer  le  dit  Thomas  Ughtred  hors  de 
la  Gayole  Deuerwic,  tanqe  le  dit  Thomas  auoit  troue  mainpernours  '*  iiij 
Chiualers  et  j  esquier  les  queux  sont  obhgez  et  fermement  liez  au  dit  vis- 
counte et  chescun  de  eux  pour  le  tout  en  V  li.  pour  entrer  la  corps  du  dit 
Thomas  Ughtred  en  la  Gayole  Deuerwic  a  ceste  Pentecoste  proschein 
auenir  '^  ou  dedeinz  mesme  celle  temps  par  garnisement  dun  mois. 

Item  le  dit  viscounte  conseilla  le  dit  Thomas  pour  lui  faire  enditer 
mesmes,  et  lui  fesoit  entendre  sil  fust  endite  qil  lui  ferroit  auoir  une  enqueste 
pour  lui  deliuerer. 

Item  le  dit  viscoimte  prist  du  dit  Thomas  Ughtred  C  s.  pour  estre  bien 
voillant  et  eidant  a  lui  en  une  assise  de  nouel  deseisine  "  qe  fust  parentre  lui 


in  maintaining  the  peace  of  the  Scottish 
border.  He  was  the  third  Baron  Percy, 
and  married  as  his  first  wife  a  great  grand- 
daughter of  Henry  III.  (G.  E.  C,  Com- 
plete Peerage,  sub  "  Percy  ".)  The  name  of 
his  colleague,  Ralph  Neville,  inclines  me  to 
identify  him  as  the  person  here  designated. 
'  Although  there  appears  to  have  been 
a  person  of  these  names  who  may  have 
been  a  different  individual,  I  incline  to 
identify  this  Ralph  Neville  with  the 
fourth  Baron  Neville  of  Roby,  whose  life 
is  recorded  in  the  lyiclionary  of  National 
Biography.  It  is  a  circumstance  not  alto- 
gether without  significance  in  this  con- 
nexion that  Dugdale,  Baronage  i,  292, 
records  that  in  1331  Neville  "  had  entered 
into  an  undertaking  to  serve  Henry,  lord 
Percy,  for  life  in  peace  or  war,  except 
against  the  king,  with  twenty  men-at- 
arms."  This  lord  Percy  was  the  father  of 
the  commissioner  of  this  document  and 
died  in  1352.  The  Patent  Rolls  afford 
numerous  instances  of  the  association  of 
Ralph  Neville  with,  but  ranking  after, 
Henry  Percy,  as  upon  commissions  of  the 
peace  for  Yorkshire  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  20 
March,  13G1,  64,  292)  and  Northumber- 
land (ib.  pp.  65,  453);  commissions  of 
oyer  and  terminer  for  Cumberland  (ib. 
p.  148)  and  Yorkshire  (4  May,  1364,  pp. 
539,  540,  541 ;  cf .  Close  Rolls,  10  June,  1364, 
p.57).  Ralph  Neville  died  5  Aug.  1367.  He 
wa.s  an  active  and  distingui.shcd  soldier  on 
the  Scottish  border  (see  Did.  Nat.  Diog.). 


The  difficulty  remains,  however,  that  the 
style  "  monsieur "  is  used.  This  can 
scarcely,  however,  have  indicated  his 
third  son,  Ralph  Neville,  who  was  born 
not  earlier  than  1343,  his  eldest  brother 
John  being  aged  twenty-si.x  on  the  death 
of  his  father  in  1367,  and  who  would  there- 
fore have  been  only  about  twenty-three  in 
1366.  The  next  name,  that  of  a  judge, 
suggests  that  the  first  two  commissioners 
were  men  of  high  rank. 

'"  John  Mowbray,  whose  connexion 
with  the  noble  family  of  Mowbray  or 
Moubray  Foss  was  unable  to  discover, 
was  in  practice  as  an  advocate  as  early  as 
1343  and  in  1354  was  a  king's  serjeant-at- 
law.  At  this  time  he  was  a  justice  of  com- 
mon pleas,  to  which  office  he  had  been 
raised  in  1359,  and  a  knight  of  the  Bath. 
The  frequency  with  which  he  was  em- 
ployed as  a  commissioner  of  oyer  and  ter- 
miner, especially  in  the  county  of  York, 
will  be  apparent  at  a  glance  in  the  Patent 
Rolls.  William  Fyncheden  and  Roger  Ful- 
thorp  were  frequently  associated  with  him 
in  these  cases  and  similar  inquiries. 

"  William  Fyncheden  may  be  con- 
jectured to  have  been  of  a  Yorkshire 
family,  a  Richard  Fyncheden  being  ap- 
pointed a  commissioner  of  array  for  that 
county  in  13.')9.  His  name  occurs  as  an 
advocate  in  the  Year  Books  from  1350;  in 
1362  he  was  made  a  king's  serjeant,  and 
was  employed  as  a  justice  of  assize  in  1364. 
On  29  October,  1365,  he  was  appointed  a 


UGHTRED  AND  OTHERS  V.   MUSGRAVE 


55 


master  Ralph  Xcville,"  master  John  Mowbray,'"  master  William  Finch- 
deii  "  and  Roger  Fulfhorpe'^  held  seven  inquests  of  the  knights  and  more 
substantial  squires"  in  the  county,  and  could  not  find  anything  against 
the  said  Thomas  Ughtrod  [for  which]  to  imprison  him,  and  whereas  the 
said  Thomas  Ughtrcd  had  a  writ  to  the  justices  aforesaid  to  go  to  his 
deliverance  "  as  the  law  requires,  the  said  sheriff  delayed  it  of  malice,  that 
he  might  not  be  able  to  be  delivered. 

Also  the  said  sheriff  would  not  deliver  the  said  Thomas  Ughtred  out  of 
the  jail  of  York  until  the  said  Thomas  had  found  as  mainpernors  "  four 
knights  and  one  esquire  who  are  under  obligation  and  straitly  bound  to  the 
said  sheriff,  and  each  of  them  for  the  whole  in  five  hundred  pounds,  to  bring 
the  body  of  the  said  Thomas  Ughtred  into  the  jail  of  York  at  this  Pentecost 
next  coming  '^  or  within  that  same  time  at  one  month's  notice. 

Also  the  said  sheriff  counselled  the  said  Thomas  to  cause  himself  to  be 
indicted,  and  gave  him  to  understand  that  if  he  were  indicted  he  would 
cause  him  to  have  an  inquest  to  deliver  him. 

Also  the  said  sheriff  took  from  the  said  Thomas  Ughtred  a  hundred 
shillings  to  be  partial  and  helpful  to  him  in  an  assise  of  novel  disseisin,"  that 


justice  of  the  common  pleas,  and  chief 
justice  of  the  same  court  on  14  April,  1371. 
Foss,  iii,  432. 

"  If  Foss  be  right  in  saying  (iv,  53)  that 
Roger  Fulthorpe,  who  in  1377  became  a 
justice  of  the  common  pleas  and  after- 
wards had  a  chequered  career  (see  Rot. 
Pari.  V,  393),  "  began  his  career  as  an  ad- 
vocate about  1366,"  he  must  have  been 
another  person  than  this  commissioner. 
The  Patent  Rolls  shew  that  during  some 
years  Roger  Fulthorpe  or  Foulthorpe  had 
been  employed  on  commissions  of  oyer 
and  terminer,  &c.,  especiallv  in  Yorkshire 
(1361,  p.  150;  1362,  pp.  206;  207,  &c.). 
He  probably  belonged  to  the  family  of  the 
judge,  though  he  could  not  have  been  his 
father,  whose  name  was  .-Vlan.  According 
to  Foss,  the  family  sprang  from  Thirkelby, 
near  Thirsk,  Yorkshire,  but  R.  Surtees, 
Hist,  of  Durham  (1S23),  iii,  126,  traces  it  to 
Fulthorpe  and  Tunstall,  Co.  Durham, 
and  Hipswell,  Co.  York. 

'■"  In  the  modus  proccdendi  for  the  jus- 
tices itinerant,  as  given  in  Bracton  (fo. 
116)  four  knights  are  to  be  selected  from 
every  Hundred  and  sworn  to  elect  "  xii 
milites  vel  liberos  et  legales  homines  si 
milites  non  inveniantur,"  &c.  For  the 
procedure  upon  these  inquests  see  Pollock 
&  Maitland,  Hisl.  of  Engl.  Law,  ii,  640,  &c. 
"  Every  justice  deputed  to  a  particular 
place  was  in  EjTe,  or,  as  we  should  say 
'  on  circuit.'  "     Stephen  I,  99. 


"  This  perhaps  means  the  commission 
of  oyer  and  terminer  which  commissions 
were  sometimes  special,  when  limited  to 
the  trial  of  particular  offences.  Coke 
divides  the  special  commissions  into  five 
classes,  of  which  the  third  is  a  commis- 
sion in  respect  "  of  divers  oppressions  &c., 
extortions  &c.,  by  the  king's  ministers." 
4th  Inst.  162.  By  the  statute  of  North- 
ampton (2  Ed.  Ill,  c.  2,  1328),  "  Oyers 
and  Terminers  shall  not  be  granted  but 
before  Justices  of  the  one  Bench,  or  the 
other,  or  the  Justices  Errants,  and  that 
for  great  hurt  or  horrible  Trespasses." 

According  to  Coke  (4  Insl.  164),  "  the 
Justices  were  so  carefull  that  no  innova- 
tion should  creep  in  concerning  commis- 
sions of  oier  and  terminer  that  certain 
Justices  having  their  authority  by  writ, 
where  they  ought  to  have  had  it  by  com- 
mission, though  it  were  of  the  forme  and 
words  that  the  legal  commission  ought  to 
be,  John  Knivett,  chief  justice,  by  the 
advice  of  all  the  judges  resolved,  that  the 
said  writ  was  contra  legem."  Knivett  did 
not  become  Chief  Justice  till  29  October, 
1365,  very  shortly  prior  to  this  case, 
which  perhaps  records  an  example  of  the 
practice  which  he  condemned.  Foss,  iii, 
451.  "  See  p.  45,  n. 

"  Easter  Day  being  5  April,  this  would 
l)e  Sunday,  24  May,  1366. 

"  A  civil  action,  see  P.  &  M.  ii,  47-55. 
W.  S.   Holdsworth,   Hist,  of  Engl.  Law 


56  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

et  monsieur  Thomas  de  Gray  tennant  son  estat  dount  il  fust  countre  le  dit 
Thomas  Ughtred  en  touz  maners  de  choses  touchant  mesme  lassise  en- 
countre  sa  promesse  et  encontre  la  ley  de  la  terre. 

Item  le  dit  \'iscounte  prist  Robert  Walman  seruant  an  dit  Thomas 
Ughtred  sanz  garaunt  et  sanz  enditement  ou  sanz  suspecion  et  lui  mist  en 
penaunce  et  lui  engjTia  a  poi  de  mort  pour  appeller  le  dit  Thomas  Ughtred 
de  felonie  faucement  et  de  larcjTie  encontre  sa  volonte  et  encountre  la  ley  de 
la  terre  lequel  Robert  demourast  en  les  ditz  penaunces  et  engj^nes  par  un 
noiet  et  un  jour  par  quei  il  estoit  bienpres  la  mort  pour  les  penaunces  qil 
auoit,  et  il  ne  pourroit  rien  trouer  de  malice  sur  le  dit  Thomas  Ughtred,  et 
detenoit  le  dit  Robert  en  prisone  tanqe  il  eit  fyne  au  dit  viscounte  et  a  ses 
ministres  xv  s.  iiij  d. 

B 

[Ces]  sont  les  greuaunces  et  maUces  faitz  a  Johan  de  Hothum  Chiualer  le 
fitz  *'  par  monsieur  Thomas  Alusegraue  viscounte  Deuerwyk. 

Adeprimes  le  dit  viscounte  emprisona  le  dit  Johan  sanz  procees  de  lay  ou 
enditement  ou  dascune  manere  dappelle  et  sanz  garaunt  et  encontre  la  ley, 
et  le  dit  viscount  prist  sur  lui  xiiij  enquestes  et  ne  trouast  nulle  cause  pour 
lui  emprisoner  et  les  Justices  nostre  seignour  le  Roi  du  pees  et  de  la  ley 
cestassauoir  le  sire  de  Percy  monsieur  Rauf  de  NeuUle  monsieur  Johan 
Moubray  monsieur  William  Fynchesdene  et  Roger  de  Fulthorpe  pristrent 
vij  enquestes  de[s]  chiualers  et  des  seriantz  mieuth  vaillantz  en  la  dite 
Counte  et  ne  pourroient  rien  trouer  sur  le  dit  Johan  de  Hothum  pour  lui 
emprisoner. 

Item  le  dit  viscounte  ne  voleit  deliuerer  le  dit  Johan  de  Hothum  hors  de 
la  Gaj-ole  deuerwj-k  tanqe  le  dit  Johan  Hothum  auoit  troue  mainpernours 
iiij  chiualers  et  j  esquier,  les  queux  sont  obligez  et  ferment  hez  au  dit  vis- 
counte et  chescun  pour  le  tout  en  V  U.  pour  amesner  le  corps  le  dit  mon- 
sieur Johan  de  Hothum  en  la  dite  emprisona  a  ceste  Pentecoste  proschein 
auenir  ou  dedeinz  mesme  celle  temps  par  garnisement  dun  mois. 

Item ''  le  dit  \'iscounte  conseilla  le  dit  Johan  de  Hothum  Simon  de 
Heserton  Chiualer  ^°  et  Wilham  Craunsevsyk  ^'  pour  lour  mesmes  faire 
enditer  par  lour  amistez  par  voie  de  trespas  et  sils  fuissent  issint  enditez  il 
lour  ferroit  auoir  une  enqueste  pour  ent  eux  dehuerer. 

(1903),  iii,  5.  The  WTit  to  the  sheriff  is  in  ^°  I  identify  this  person  with  Sir  Simon 
Glanvill,  xiii,  3,  and  orders  him  to  summon  de  Heselarton,  whose  name  occurs  in  the 
a  jury  of  twelve  to  decide  the  question  Patent  Rolls  for  1  Feb.  1361  (p.  2),  as  al- 
whether  the  defendant  has  "  unjustly  and  ready  a  knight  in  1356,  when  he  was  wit- 
without  judgement  "  disseised  the  plain-  ness  to  a  deed.  He  was  returned  as  a 
tiff.  If  the  jury  answered  affirmatively  the  knight  of  the  shire  for  Yorkshire  to  the 
sheriff  was  to  restore  the  disseised  person.  Parliaments  of  1362,  1363,  1366,  and  1372. 
It  would  appear  from  Musgrave's  Members  of  Parlt.,  in  Parliamentary 
answer  (p.  58,  infra)  that  Gray  was  the  Papers  (1878),  vol.  Ixii,  pt.  1.  He  was 
plaintiff  disseised.  "  See  Introd.  p.  Ixxxiv.  frequently  a  commissioner  of  oyer  and 
"  This  paragraph  seems  out  of  place  terminer  in  Yorkshire  for  inquiring  into 
and  is  repeated  in  the  next  document.  acts  of  violence  and  lawlessness,  as  with 


UGHTRED  AND  OTHERS  V.   MUSGRAVE  56 

was  between  him  and  master  Thomas  Gray  who  was  holding  his  estate,  after 
which  he  was  against  the  said  Thomas  Ughtred  in  all  manner  of  things 
touching  the  same  assize  contrary  to  his  promise  and  contrary  to  the  law  of 
the  land. 

Also  the  said  sheriff  took  Robert  Walraan  servant  to  the  said  Thomas 
Ughtred  without  warrant  and  without  indictment  or  without  suspicion 
[cast  upon  him]  and  put  him  in  durance  and  tortured  him  to  within  a  little 
of  death  falsely  to  appeal  the  said  Thomas  Ughtred  of  felony  and  larceny 
contrary  to  his  will  and  contrary  to  the  law  of  the  land,  the  which  Robert 
abode  in  the  said  durance  and  tortures  for  a  night  and  a  day,  whereby  he 
was  very  near  death  for  the  durance  that  he  suffered  and  he  could  not  find 
any  wrong  on  the  part  of  the  said  Thomas  Ughtred,  and  he  kept  the  said 
Robert  in  prison  until  he  paid  fine  to  the  said  sheriff  and  to  his  officers  of 
fifteen  sliillings  and  four  pence. 

B 

[These]  are  the  injuries  and  wrongs  done  to  John  Hotham,  knight, 
junior,"  by  master  Thomas  Musgrave  sheriff  of  York. 

First,  the  said  sheriff  imprisoned  the  said  John  without  process  of  law  or 
indictment,  or  of  any  manner  of  appeal  and  without  warrant  and  contrary 
to  law,  and  the  said  sheriff  held  fourteen  inquests  against  him  and  found  no 
cause  for  imprisoning  him,  and  the  justices  of  our  lord  the  king  [both]  of  the 
peace  and  of  the  law,  to  wit,  the  lord  Percy,  master  Ralph  Neville,  master 
John  Mowbraj',  master  William  Finchden,  and  Roger  Fulthorpe  held  seven 
inquests  of  the  knights  and  more  substantial  squires  in  the  said  county  and 
could  not  find  anything  against  the  said  John  Hotham  [for  which]  to  im- 
prison him. 

Also  the  said  sheriff  would  not  deliver  the  said  John  Hotham  from  the  jail 
of  York  until  the  said  John  Hotham  had  found  as  mainpernors  four  knights 
and  one  esquire  who  are  under  obligation  and  straitly  bound  to  the  said 
sheriff,  each  for  the  whole,  in  five  hundred  pounds  to  bring  the  body  of  the 
said  master  John  Hotham  into  the  said  prison  at  this  Pentecost  next  coming 
or  within  that  same  time  at  one  month's  notice. 

Also  ''  the  said  sheriff  counselled  the  said  John  Hotham,  Simon  Heser- 
ton,  knight,^  and  Wilham  Cranswick  ^'  to  cause  themselves  to  be  indicted 
by  their  friends  by  way  of  trespass,  and  if  they  should  be  so  indicted,  he 
would  cause  them  to  have  an  inquest  to  deliver  them  from  it. 

John  Moubray  and  four  others  {Pat.  Fulthorp  and  four  others  touching  dis- 
RolU,  12  Feb.,  1365,  p.  159),  touching  orders  in  Cleveland  (ib.  p.  280).  In  1366 
assaults,  <fec.  at  Scarborough;  with  W.  de  he  was  a  commissioner  of  array  for  the 
Fyncheden  and  eight  others  touching  as-  East  Riding  (ib.  p.  365). 
saults,  &c.,  at  Wortclay,  (ib.  p.  140);  with  2'  This  uncommon  name  occurs  in  a 
Henry  de  Percy,  Roger  de  Fulthorp  and  license  dated  26  Feb.  1358,  for  the  aliena- 
eight  others  touching  violence  at  Don-  tion  by  William  de  Crauncowyk  and 
caster,  10  May,  1365,  ib.  p.  146;  and  with  Cecily  his  wife  of  a  messuage  in  North- 
John  Moubray,  W.  de  Fyncheden,  R.  de  ampton   to   the   Carmelite   Friars   there. 


57  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

c 

Ces  sont  les  greuances  et  malicez  faitz  a  Nichol  de  Hothum  esquier  par 
monsieur  Thomas  Musgraue  viscounte  Deuerwyk. 

Adeprimes  le  dit  \'iscounte  enprisona  le  dit  Nicol  sanz  proces  de  ley  ou 
enditement  ou  dascune  manere  dappelle  et  sanz  garaunt  et  encontre  la  ley, 
et  le  dit  Aascounte  prist  sur  lui  xiiij  enquestes  et  ne  troua  nulle  cause  pour  lui 
emprisoner  et  les  Justices  nostre  seignour  le  Roi  du  pees  et  del  lay  cestas- 
sauoir  le  Sire  de  Percy  monsieur  Rauf  de  Neuille  monsieur  Johan  Moubray 
monsieur  William  de  Fynchedene  et  Roger  de  Fulthorpe  pristrent  vij  en- 
questes des  chiualers  et  des  serjantz  meultz  vaillantz  en  la  dite  Counte  et  ne 
pourroient  rien  trouer  sur  le  dit  Nichol  pour  lui  emprisoner.  Item  le  dit 
\ascount  ne  voleit  dehuerer  le  dit  Nichol  hors  de  la  Gayole  Deuerwyk  tanqe 
le  dit  Nichol  auoit  troue  mainpernoure  un  chiualer  pour  soi  obUger  pour  le 
dit  Nichol  au  dit  viscounte  en  C  U.^^  pour  amesner  le  corps  le  dit  Nichol  en 
la  dite  emprisone  a  ceste  Pentecoste  proscheyn  auenir  ou  dedeinz  mesme  le 
temps  par  garnisement  dun  Mois.  Item  le  dit  \iscount  conseilla  le  dit 
Nichol,  Simon  de  Heserton  chiualer  et  Wilham  Craunsewyk  pour  lour 
mesmes  faire  enditer  par  lours  amisteez  par  voie  de  trespas  et  sils  fuissent 
issint  enditez  il  lour  ferroit  auoir  une  enqueste  pour  ent  eux  dehuerer. 

D 

Et  super  hoc  predictus  Thomas  de  Musgraue  coram  consilio  super  pre- 
missis  allocutus  dicit  qe  qant  as  prises  et  le  prisonementz  des  corps  des  ditz 
monsieur  Thomas  monsieur  Johan  et  Nichol,  II  v[oet]  dire  qil  est  viscount 
du  Countee  et  un  des  Justicez  de  la  peez.  A  qi  grant  clamour  des  plusours 
gentz  de  pays  vient  de  jour  en  jour  qi  gentz  cheuacherent  od  grante  route  de 
jour  et  de  nuyt,  portauntz  les  nuji;z  feu  ouesqes  eux  manassauntz  gentz  qils 
serroient  [arz]  "  sils  ne  firent  fjms  et  rancouns  cestassauoir  aquns  xx  h.  et 
aquns  x  li.  et  a  ceo  firent  grantz  enseignes  il  firent  [les  ten]  celes  de  feu  voler 
en  tour  lours  maisons  [et  mistjrount  en  feu  et  en  flamme  un  tasse  de  poises 
dount  gentz  de  celles  parties  del  AValde  ^  furent  mys  en  grant  affraye  et 
souent  firount  lours  pleyntes  priaunt  remedie  et  aide  del  dit  viscount  et 
noserount  en  lours  maison  demourer  sanz  Wacches  faire  continucleinent 
par  nuyt  par  xij  homes  ou  x,  a  grant  custage  et  oppression  du  pcplo  ct  aquns 
furent  rohbccz  de  grant  auoir  cestassauoir  Walter  de  Cotes  de  iiij'"'  et  xv  li. 
et  autres  diuerses  gentz,  les  nouns  des  queux  sont  contenuz  en  une  bille 
[consue  a]  icestcs.  [Dount  le  dit  viscount  vbillant  la  pese  garder  come  il 
fuist  jurree  et  par  sa  ligeance  tenuz]  espia  par  tons  les  maneres  qil  poiast 

Pat.  Rolls.,  pp.  16,  20,  cf.  the  P.  R.  for  37  messuage  and  two  carucates  of  land  in 

Ed.  Ill,  16  May,  1363,  p.  339.     There  is,  Hoton   Cr!iunrcw>kc.      De    Banco  Rolls, 

however,  a  parish  in  the  East  Riding  of  Mich.  14  R.  II,  m.  lOS.     The  Gcnealogisl, 

Yorkshire,    Hutton-Cran.swick,    probably  N.  S.  xiv,  94. 

connected  with  the  family  of  the  person  ''  The  pecuniary  bail  for  the  esquire  is 

mentioned  in  this  case.    In  1390  Edmund  only  one-fifth  the  sum  demanded  for  each 

de  Hothom  sued  John  Godard,  Kt.  for  a  knight. 


UGHTRED  AND  OTHERS  V.   MUSGRAVE  57 

c 

These  are  the  injuries  and  wrongs  done  to  Nicholas  Hotham  esquire  by 
master  Thomas  Musgrave  sheriff  of  York. 

First,  the  said  sheriff  imprisoned  the  said  Nicholas  without  process  of 
law  or  indictment  or  of  any  manner  of  appeal  and  without  warrant  and  con- 
trary to  law,  and  the  said  sheriff  held  fourteen  inquests  against  him,  and 
found  no  cause  for  imprisoning  him,  and  the  justices  of  our  lord  the  king 
[both]  of  the  peace  and  of  the  law,  to  wit,  the  lord  Percy,  master  Ralph 
Neville,  master  John  Mowbraj^  master  Wilham  Finchden,  and  Roger  Ful- 
thorpe  held  seven  inquests  of  the  knights  and  more  substantial  squires  in 
the  said  county  and  could  not  find  anything  against  the  said  Nicholas  [for 
which]  to  imprison  him.  Also  the  said  sheriff  would  not  deliver  the  said 
Nicholas  out  of  the  jail  of  York  until  the  said  Nicholas  had  found  [as]  main- 
pernor a  knight  to  liind  himself  for  the  said  Nicholas  to  the  said  sheriff  in 
a  hundred  pounds  ^^  to  bring  the  body  of  the  said  Nicholas  into  the  said 
prison  at  this  Pentecost  next  coming,  or  within  the  same  time  at  one  month's 
notice.  Also  the  said  sheriff  counselled  the  said  Nicholas,  Simon  He.serton, 
knight,  and  William  Cranswick  to  cause  themselves  to  be  indicted  by  their 
friends  by  way  of  trespass,  and  if  they  should  be  so  indicted,  he  would  cause 
them  to  have  an  inquest  to  deliver  them  from  it. 

D 

Whereupon  the  aforesaid  Thomas  Musgrave,  summoned  before  the 
council  touching  the  premises,  says  that  as  to  the  taking  and  imprisonment 
of  the  bodies  of  the  said  master  Thomas,  master  John,  and  Nicholas,  he 
w[ishes]  to  say  that  he  is  sheriff  of  the  county  and  one  of  the  justices  of  the 
peace.  To  whom  a  great  outcry  daily  comes  from  divers  countrj'  folk  that 
folk  ride  on  the  high  road  by  day  and  night,  carrying  by  night  fire  with 
them,  threatening  folk  that  they  should  be  burnt  if  they  did  not  make  fines 
and  ransoms,  to  wit,  some  twenty  pounds  and  some  ten  pounds,  and  to  this 
end  thej'  made  great  display;  they  kindled  sparks  of  fire  around  their 
houses  and  set  afire  and  aflame  a  vat  of  pitch,  wherefore  folk  of  those  parts 
of  the  Wold  ^  were  greatly  affrighted  and  often  made  their  complaints 
praying  remedy  and  help  of  the  said  sheriff  and  did  not  dare  to  abide  in 
their  houses  without  keeping  watch  continually  at  night,  twelve  or  ten  men 
together,  to  the  great  cost  and  oppression  of  the  people;  and  some  were 
robbed  of  great  substance,  to  wit,  Walter  Cotes  of  four  score  and  fifteen 
pounds  and  divers  other  folk  whose  names  are  contained  in  a  bill  [sewn  on 
to]  these  [papers].  [Wherefore  the  said  sheriff  wishing  to  guard  the  peace  as 
he  was  sworn  and  bound  by  his  allegiance]  searched  by  all  methods  in  his 

"  This  word,  as  also  those  which  follow  '*  "  At  Hessle  the  Wolds  of  the  East 
in  square  brackets,  is  supplied  from  the  Riding  of  York  begin,  and  stretch  thirty- 
answer  in  membrane  4,  which  is  in  almost  five  miles  long,  and  five  to  thirty  broad." 
perfect  condition.  T.  A.  Sharp,  New  Gazetteer  (1852),  ii,  918. 


58  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

par  queux  tiels  roberies  et  affraies  furent  faitz  et  sur  ceo  lui  nounsachaiint 
brief  le  Roi  lui  vient  demaundaunt  sur  peyn  ^  de  taunt  come  il  pourreit 
forfair  qil  ferreit  arest  et  execucion  des  tielx  qe  tiels  roberies  et  affraies 
firent  ou  autrcment  il  serroit  tcnuz  come  mayntenour  des  ditz  robbours  et 
meffesours :  et  pur  ceo  qe  comune  esclaundre  et  clamour  fuist  qe  ceux  qi  se 
pleignent  a  ore  furent  desclaundres  des  ditz  faitz,  le  dit  viscount  les  arestut, 
puis  quele  arest  nulls  affraies  ne  robberies  ount  este  faitz  en  eels  parties. 
Et  la  soertee  qil  prist  de  les  parties  attachez  ceo  ne  fust  pas  pour  profist 
prendre  a  lui  mesmes  mes  qe  eux  serroient  prestes  destre  [deuantz]  le  Roi  et 
son  conseil  en  cas  qils  fuissent  maundetz  come  poet  estre  proue  par  lour 
defesaunce.^' 

Item  quant  a  la  destourbance  qe  lui  est  surmys  qil  duist  auoir  fait  que 
les  Justices  le  Roi  ne  pourrent  aler  a  lour  deliuerance,  le  poiar  ne  fuist  pas  en 
lui  a  destourber  ceux  qi  sount  ses  soueraignes  as  queux  il  coueynt  qil  soit 
obeisaunt,  et  sU  plese  al  counseU  ils  pourrount  [examiner]  les  ditz  Justices, 
sil  fist  la  destourbance  ou  nemy. 

Item  a  ceo  qest  dist  qil  duist  auoir  counseille  as  ditz  monsieur  Thomas  et 
monsieur  Johan  qeux  se  duissent  mesmes  auoir  fait  enditer  par  lours  amyes 
et  qil  lour  voldra  fair  auoir  enquest  de  eux  acquiter,  la  quele  chose  ne  poet 
estre  entendu  par  reson  pour  ceo  qil  ne  fuist  pas  de  lour  counseil,  mes  il 
disoit  qe  en  cas  qeux  ne  ussent  pas  estee  coupables  meutz  vaudroit  a  eux 
dauoir  este  bien  acquitee  qe  touz  jours  demourer  en  suspecion  des  tielx 
malueistez  saunz  les  counseiller  destre  enditez  ou  promesse  faire  de  lour 
deiiueraunce. 

Item  de  ceo  qil  duist  auoir  fait  prendre  Robert  Walman  seruaunt  le  dit 
Monsieur  Thomas  Ughtred  et  lui  auoir  tenuz  en  forte  prison  par  destresse 
de  lui  fair  auoir  apelle  son  mestre,  la  cause  de  la  prise  de  lui  fuist  pour  ceo  qe 
un  Wautcr  de  Cotes  fuist  robbe  de  nuyt  de  la  sunie  suisditc  pres  de  la 
demoer  le  dit  Robert  et  comune  clamour  fuist  et  auxint  fuist  cht  qil  sauoit 
enfourmer  de  les  meffesours  et  qil  fuist  mesmes  partie  a  la  robberye,  issint 
fuist  il  pris  par  suspecion  taunqe  home  ust  enquis  de  lui,  et  apres  de  mesme 
la  robberj'e  est  [endite]  sanz  ceo  "^  qil  lui  enprisona  pour  lui  fair  appellor  le 
dit  Monsieur  Thomas,  ou  nulle  autre  et  saunz  ceo  qil  prist  nulle  [dener]  del 
dit  Robert  come  est  suppose  par  lour  billc. 

Item  quant  a  la  prise  de  Cent  south  del  cht  Monsieur  Thomas  destre  en 
aide  de  lui  en  une  assise  quele  Monsieur  Thomas  de  G[ray]  porta  deuers  lui 
et  fuist  encountrc  hii,  a  ceo  il  dist  qil  iiauoit  nulle  tie!  promesse  ne  couenant 
de  lui  mes  [un  Monsieur  William]  de  Acclom  ^  lui  vient  de  part  le  dit  Mon- 

"  From  this  point  the  text  is  taken  from  performed  by  the  Obligor,  or  Recognisor, 

membrane  4.  the  Act  is  disabled  and  annulled,  as  if  it 

'''  "  Defeizance  coraeth  of  the  French  had  never  been  done."     J.  Cowell,  InUr- 

DefTayre  .  .  .  that  is,  '  Infestum  rcddere  ■preler  (ed.  1701). 

quod  factum  est,'  and  signifieth  a  condi-  "  The   regular   form   of   traverse;    see 

tion  relating  to  a  deed,  as  an  Obligation,  Select  Cases  in  the  Court  of  Requests  (Seld. 

Recognisance,    or   Statute,    which    being  See.   1898)  and  Select  Cases  in  the  Star 


UGHTRED   AND   OTHERS   V.   MUSGRAVE  58 

power  by  whom  sudi  robberies  and  affrays  were  made  and  thereupon, 
though  he  knew  nothing  of  it,  comes  a  letter  of  the  king  demanding,  upon 
penalty  of  as  much  as  he  had  to  forfeit,  that  he  should  make  arrest  and 
execution  of  those  who  committed  such  robberies  and  affrays  or  otherwise 
he  would  be  held  as  a  maintainor  of  the  said  robbers  and  malefactors.  And 
because  there  was  common  scandal  and  outcry  that  those  who  are  now 
complaining  were  under  the  scandal  of  the  said  deeds,  the  said  sheriff 
arrested  them,  since  which  arrest  no  affrays  nor  robberies  have  been  com- 
mitted in  [those  parts].  And  the  surety  that  he  took  of  the  parties  attached 
was  not  for  the  purpose  of  taking  profit  to  himself,  but  that  they  might  be 
ready  to  be  [before]  the  king  and  his  council  in  case  they  should  be  com- 
manded, as  can  be  proved  by  their  defeasance  [clause].^' 

Also  as  to  the  delay  surmised  against  him  as  having  been  made  so  that 
the  king's  justices  could  not  go  to  their  deliverance,  it  was  not  in  his  power 
to  delay  those  who  are  his  superiors  to  whom  it  is  fitting  that  he  should  be 
obedient,  and  if  it  please  the  council,  they  will  be  able  [to  examine]  the  said 
justices,  whether  he  caused  the  delay  [alleged],  or  not. 

Also  to  that  which  is  said  that  he  had,  as  was  alleged,  counselled  the  said 
master  Thomas  and  master  John  that  they  ought  to  have  caused  themselves 
to  be  indicted  by  their  friends  and  that  he  wished  them  to  cause  an  inquest 
to  be  held  for  their  acquittal  —  wliich  thing  ought  not  to  be  listened  to, 
because  he  was  not  of  their  counsel — but  he  said  that  in  case  that  they 
should  not  have  been  culpable,  it  would  be  better  worth  their  while  to  be 
clearly  acquitted  than  to  remain  always  suspected  of  such  misdemeanours, 
without  counselling  them  to  be  indicted  or  promising  their  deliverance. 

Also  of  the  charge  that  he  had  caused  the  arrest  of  Robert  Walman, 
servant  of  the  said  Master  Thomas  Ughtred,  and  had  held  him  in  stronghold 
by  compulsion  to  cause  him  to  summon  his  master,  the  cause  of  his  taking 
him  was  that  one  Walter  Cotes  was  robbed  at  night  of  the  sum  above  men- 
tioned near  the  dwelling  of  the  said  Robert,  and  there  was  a  common  cry 
and  it  was  also  said  that  he  had  information  of  the  malefactors  and  that  he 
was  even  party  to  the  robbery,  so  he  was  taken  on  suspicion  till  inquiry 
about  him  could  be  made,  and  was  afterwards  indicted  of  the  same  robbery, 
without  that  that  "  he  imprisoned  him  to  make  him  [falsely]  appeal  the  said 
master  Thomas  or  any  other,  and  without  that  that  he  took  any  penny  of 
the  said  Robert  as  is  suggested  by  their  bill. 

Also  as  to  the  taking  of  a  hundred  shillings  of  the  said  master  Thomas  to 
be  of  help  to  him  in  an  assize  which  master  Thomas  G(ray)  brought  against 
him,  and  he  (the  sheriff)  was  opposed  to  him,  to  that  he  says  that  he,  master 
Thomas,  had  no  such  promise  nor  covenant  from  him  but  [a  master]  William 
Acclom,^  coming  to  him  on  the  part  of  the  said  master  Thomas  Ughtred, 

Chamber  (ib.  1902  and  1910).     See  W.  S.      of  a  parish  on  the  Wolds  of  the  East  Riding 

Holdsworth,  Hist.  Engl.  Law,  iii,  477.  of  Yorkshire  (Sharp,  New  Gazetteer).     It 

''  Acklam  or  East  Acklam  is  the  name      was  at  one  time  the  seat  of  a  family  to 


59  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

sieur  Thomas  Ughtred  et  lui  profryst  Cent  south  destre  resonable  amy  et 
officer  en  la  dite  assise  la  quele  soumme  il  refusa  adonqes  et  le  dit  Mon- 
sieur William  lui  sourmyst  qe  en  cas  qe  sil  ne  voleit  la  dite  soume  rcsceuire 
qe  le  dit  Monsieur  Thomas  Ughtred  outrement  se  desasseurast  de  lui  qil  ne 
lui  voleit  fair  reson  come  attient  a  son  office,  et  il  lui  respoundy  qil  ferroit 
duement  son  office,  et  apres  les  parties  furent  accordetz  par  mcdiacion  des 
seignours  de  Percy  Neuille  Clifford^  et  de  Moubray'"  et  Monsieur  Richard 
Lescrop,"  issint  qe  la  dite  assise  passereit  par  assent,  et  puis  passa  j)ar 
assent,  et  issint  le  dit  Monsieur  William  lui  dona  eel  somme  saunz  ceo  qil  le 
prist  en  autre  manere  ou  fuist  encountre  [en]  eel  assise. 

Et  super  hoc  quesitum  est  a  prefato  Thoma  de  Musgraue  si  aliquod 
speciale  factum  assignare  velit  erga  predictos  Thomam  Ughtred  Johannem 
de  Hothom  Chiualer  le  fitz  et  Nicholaum  de  Hothom  vel  si  ipse  cepit  inqui- 
sicionem  super  premissis  debito  modo  prout  supponitur,  vel  si  ipsi  indictati 
fuerunt  coram  se,  vel  si  aliquid  inuenit  cum  eis  de  quo  suspicio  mali  habere- 
tur,  qui  se  tenet  responsioni  sue  supradicte.  Et  super  hoc  Henricus  Domi- 
nus  de  Percy  et  Radulfus  de  Neuille  ibi  in  consilio  presentes  qui  assignati 
fuerunt  per  commissionem  Domini  Regis  ad  inquirendum  super  premissis 
et  ahis  examinati  fuerunt,  qui  dicunt  quod  ipsi  diligenter  ceperunt  inde  in- 
quisiciones  .  .  .  de  diuversis  locis  in  quibus  oportuit  et  necesse  fuit  et 
fecerunt  [homines]  qui  depredati  fuerunt  .  .  .  iandum  inquisiciones  de 
veritate.  Item  quod  nichil  inuenerunt  erga  predictos  Thomam  Ughtred 
[Johannem  et  N]icholaum  de  Hothom  de  feloniis  iiredictis  nee  audierunt 
quod  predicti  Thomas  Johannes  et  Nicholaus  de  illis  f[eloniis  indictati. .] . . . 
de  aUis  feloniis  qui  .  .  .  fuerunt  suspecti  vel  disracionati.    Et  quia  videtur 

which  it  gave  its  name.    (Surtees  Society,  oyer  and  terminer  in  a  case  of  illegal  hunt- 

xli,  p.  65.)    This  William  Acclom  is  prob-  ing,  &c.,  at  Maltby  by  Brathewcll,  Co. 

ably  the  William  de  Aclom  who  was  to-  York  (Pal.  Rolls,  36  Ed.  Ill,  p.  207).  Two 

gether  with  Roger  de  Fulthorp,  Thomas  de  years  later  he  is  styled  ''  rhivaler  "  {Pat. 

Maulay,  and  two  others,  appointed  com-  Rolls,  38  Ed.  Ill,  p.  503).     On  12  May, 

missioner  of  oyer  and  terminer  on  a  com-  1365,  he  received  a  commission  of  oyer  and 

plaint  of  violence  at  Skelton,  Co.  York,  2  terminer,  together  with  Henry  Perry,  John 

December,  1367   {Pat.  Rolls,  41   Ed.  Ill,  Moubray,  Simon  Heselarton,  Roger  Ful- 

p.  69).     As  William  de  Aklome,  he  was  thorp,  and  five  others,  in  the  case  of  a 

nominated  on  20  December,  1368,  a  com-  complaint  by  "  Margaret,  late  the  wife  of 

missioner   of   array   for   Y'orkshire    {Pat.  Peter  de  Malo  Lacu  (de  Manly)  le  quynt  " 

Rolh,  42  Ed.  Ill,  185).  of  violence  at  Doncaster  {Pat.  Rolh,  39 

"  This  was  Roger  Clifford,  ninth  Lord  Ed.  Ill,  p.  146).    This  lady  was  his  sister 

Clifford,  fifth  Baron  of  Westmorland,  born  and  had  been  left  a  widow  in  1355  (G.  E. 

in  1333.    He  was  much  employed  upon  the  C.  Compltte  Peerage,  v,2T3).    But  though 

Northern    borders.      His   career    will    be  he  was  appointed  to  many  like  commis- 

found  sketched   in  the  Did.  Nat.  Biog.  sions  in  Yorkshire  upon  sul)sequent  occa- 

There  are  indications  in  the  Patent  Rolls  sions,  I  have  found  no  evidence  of  any  in 

that  he  was  intimately  associated  with  the  the  case  mentionctl  in  the  text. 
Musgraves  (Pat.  Rolh,  28  Ed.  Ill,  p.  89;  "  In  his  will  (Testiimcnta  Eboracensia, 

1357,  31  Ed.  Ill,  p.  572).    He  was,  on  the  Surtees  Society   11836),    p.   116)  dated  8 

10  February,  1362,  with  John   Moubray,  March,  13S1  2,  he  ajipears  as  "  Petrus  de 

Alexander    Nevill,    Roger    Fulthorp    and  Malo  Lacu,  Sextus  "  that  is,  the  sixth  in 

two  others,  appointed  a  commissioner  of  order  of  the  names.     He  devises  his  in- 


UC.HTRED   AND   OTHERS   V.   MUSGRAVE  59 

proffered  him  a  hundred  shillings  to  be  a  favourable  [friend  and  official  in] 
the  said  assize,  the  which  sum  he  then  refused,  and  the  said  Master  William 
suggested  to  him  that  in  case  of  [his  being  unwilling]  to  receive  [the  said] 
sum,  that  the  said  master  Thomas  light  red  would  be  exceedingly  disheart- 
ened by  his  not  being  willing  to  act  reasonably  as  pertains  to  his  office;  and 
he  answered  him  that  he  would  duly  execute  his  office;  and  afterwards  the 
parties  were  at  an  accord  by  the  mediation  of  the  lords  Percy,  Neville, 
Clifford  ^  and  de  Maulay  *>  and  master  Richard  Scrope ''  that  the  said 
assize  should  be  ended  by  consent,  and  it  then  ended  by  consent,  and  so  the 
said  master  William  gave  him  that  sum  without  that  he  took  it  in  any  other 
manner  or  was  [opposed  to  him]  in  that  assize. 

And  thereupon  the  question  was  asked  of  the  aforementioned  Thomas 
Musgrave,  if  he  desires  to  charge  any  particular  act  against  the  aforesaid 
Thomas  Ughtred,  John  Hotham,  knight,  junior,  and  Nicholas  Hotham,  or  if 
he  himself  held  inquest  of  the  premises  in  due  maimer  as  is  supposed,  or  if 
they  were  themselves  indicted  before  him,  or  if  he  found  aught  upon  them 
whence  a  suspicion  of  crime  might  be  entertained.  The  sheriff  abides  by 
his  answer  above  said.  And  thereupon  Henrj'  Lord  Percy  and  Ralph 
Neville  there  present  in  the  council,  who  had  been  assigned  by  commi.ssion 
of  the  lord  the  king  to  inquire  as  to  the  above  and  other  matters,  were 
examined,  and  they  say  that  they  have  diligently  held  inquest  in  that  be- 
half ...  of  diverse  places  in  which  it  was  right  and  needful  and  have 
caused  the  men  who  have  been  plundered  .  .  .  inquests  touching  tiic 
truth.  Also  that  they  have  found  nothing  against  the  aforesaid  Thomas 
Ughtred,  [John  and  N]ichoIas  Hotham  touching  the  felonies  aforesaid,  nor 
have  they  heard  that  the  aforesaid  Thomas,  John  and  Nicholas  [have  been 
indicted  of  those  felonies]  ...  of  other  felonies  which  .  .  .  they  had  been 

terest  in  the  manors,  &c.  conveyed  to  him  seated  in  the  East  Riding  and  North  Lin- 
by  Henry  Lord  de  Percy,  Roger  de  CHf-  colnshire."  The  Hves  of  both  father  and 
ford,  Sir  John  de  Hothum  and  others  in  son  are  given  in  the  Did.  Nat.  Biog. 
trust  for  his  mother  Margaret  for  hfe,  &c.  Richard  was  knighted  at  the  battle  of 
He  succeeded  his  father  at  the  age  of  24  in  Nevill's  Cross  in  1346;  sat  for  Yorkshire 
1355.  He  was  himself  a  complainant  in  in  1364  and  in  1378  became  ch.incellor. 
13C2  of  violence  done  in  his  park  of  Boyn-  The  Patent  Rolls  shew  that  he  was  fre- 
ton  of  the  Walde,  Co.  York  {Pat.  Rolls,  36  quently  employed  as  a  commissioner  of 
Ed.  Ill,  p.  206),  and  again  at  other  places  over  and  terminer  in  Yorkshire;  as  in 
in  Yorkshire  in  1366  (Pat.  40  Ed.  Ill,  p.  1364  (38  Ed.  Ill,  pp.  69,  73;  1365,  39  Ed. 
280).  On  the  latter  of  these  occasions  the  III,  pp.  146, 151).  His  seat  appears  to  have 
commission  of  oyer  and  terminer  included  been  at  Briggenale,  York,  where  he  corn- 
John  Moubray,  William  Fvncheden,  iilained  of  poaching  in  his  park  (8  July, 
Simon  Heslarton  and  Roger  Fulthorp,  1365,  Po<.  iioKs,  39  Ed.  Ill,  p.  200).  It  is 
with  four  others  (ib.).  In  1365  he  was  a  to  be  noted  that  though  he  is  in  this  docu- 
commissioner  of  array  for  the  East  Riding  ment  styled  "  monsieur,"  yet  as  "  Richard 
(ib.  p.  365).  M.  3  here  reads  Moubray;  Scrope,  Knight,"  he  was  on  22  May,  1365 
m.  4,  Maulay.  nominated  a  commissioner  of  oyer  and 
"  Sir  Richard  Scrope,  or  le  Scrope;  terminer  in  a  case  of  violence  at  Colthorp 
third  son  of  Sir  Henry  le  Scrope,  chief  jus-  and  Bekerton,  York  (Pat.  Rolls,  39  Ed. 
tice  of  the  king's  bench,  whose  father  III,  p.  147).  He  died  in  1403. 
"  came  of  an   obscure  family  originally 


60  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

consil[io  .  .  .  quod]  predictus  Thomas  de  Musgrave  n[on  a]llegauit  aliquod 
factum  speciale  erga  predictos  Thomam  Ughtred  Johannem  et  Nicholaum 
nee  ipsos  cum  aliqua  re  suspectos  fore  .  .  .  ntes  nee  quod  ipsi  indictati 
fuerunt  set  sol[ummo]do  quod  communis  clamor  et  scandalum  super  ipsos 
.  .  .  er  simile  ex  quo  per  aliquam  inquisicionem  in  Com[itatu  predicto 
corjam  Justiciariis  nee  viceeomite  hoc  potuit  .  .  .  quod  [nulla]  arestacio  in 
hoc  easu  per  legem  terre  potest  justificari  [dictu]m  est  predicto  Thome 
de  Musgraue  quod  .  .  .  [rece]dat  a  villa  quousque  dominus  Rex  inde 
dixerit  volunta[tem  suam].  Et  dictum  est  partibus  predictis  quod  ut  ipsi 
.  .  .  voluerint  [sequi]  predictum  Thomam  de  Musgraue  pro  dampnis  in 
hoc  .  .  .  quod  sequantur  in  scaccario  domini  Regis  [vel  in]  Curiis  Regis  ad 
talia  deputatis  si  sibi  viderint  [expediens]. 


LO'R'ESTOFT  t-.  YARMOUTH ' 

A  Petition  of  Lowestoft 

1378  Cestes  sent  les  instances  queles  les  gentz  de  Lowestoft  poures  tenantz 
nostre  seignur  le  Roy  ^  mettunt  qe  les  bailleys '  et  burgeys  de  Jememuth  ne 
deiuent  auoir  chartre  de  Fraunchises  touchant  les  harynges  en  faire  de 
KyrkelejTode.^ 

Item  qe  come  en  le  temps  le  Roi  Edward  laiel  nostre  seignur  le  Roy  qor 
est  ^  en  parlement  estoit  ordine  par  estatut  *  qe  ehescun  Uege  du  roiabue 
pourroit  achater  et  vendre  touz  marchandises  et  vitailles  sanz  empesche- 
ment  deinz  Citees  Burghes  portes  de  meer  et  aillours,  et  si  ehartres  de 
Fraunchises  usages  ou  patent  fuissent  grantez  a  contrarie  serroient  tenuz 
pur  nulle  et  la  suite  quele  les  ditz  Baillyes  et  Burgeys  ore  pursuiont  dauoir 
une  chartre  a  contrarie  du  dit  estatut  est  noun  resonable  et  eneountre 
le  dit  estatut. 

Item  auant  ces  heures  par  bon  deliberacion  de  touz  les  seignurs  et 
communes  en  plein  parlement  lour  chartre  fuit  repelle  pur  profit  du  Roy  e 
communes  de  la  terre  come  adonqes  estoit  monstre  et  proue  en  le  dit  parle- 
ment.' 

Item  la  ou  par  doun  de  dieu  les  niefs  queles  pregnont  Harjmges  se 
arriuent  en  Kj'rkclejTode  joust  la  dite  ville  de  Lowestoft  et  ce  qest  pris 
en  la  meer  de  reson  et  bon  foy  le  Marchauntz  et  Mariners  des  ditz  niefs 
deussent  vendre  arriuer  lour  marchaundises  a  lour  volunte  et  en  ce  qe  les 

'  Parliamenlary  and  Council  Proceed-  regis).    See  Cases  in  Star  Chamber  (Selden 

ings  (Chancery),  file  12,  nos.  2,  3,  4,  con-  Soc.  1910),  Ixxx-l.xxxiii;  alsoB,  n.  22,  infra, 

sisting  of  A,  petition  of  Lowestoft,   n,  a  '  Yarmouth  was  governed  by  a  provost 

later  petition,  c.  Answers  of  Yarmouth,  appointed  by  the  king  from  the  time  of 

D,  Replication.  Henry  I,  till  John,  by  charter  of  18  March, 

•  That  is,  in  "ancient  demesne"  (terra  1208,  granted  it  free  election  of  its  own 


LOWESTOFT   V.    YARMOUTH  60 

suspected  or  arraigned.  And  since  the  council  is  of  the  opinion  .  .  .  [that] 
the  aforesaid  Thomas  Musgrave  has  not  alleged  any  particular  act  against 
the  aforesaid  Thomas  Ughtred,  Jolin  and  Nicholas,  or  that  they  have  been 
suspected  of  anything  .  .  .  and  since  they  have  not  been  indicted,  but  only 
common  cry  and  scandal  [has  been  raised]  against  them,  very  likely  since 
by  an  inquest  in  the  [aforesaid]  county  before  the  justices  or  the  sheriff  this 
could  not  .  .  .  that  [no]  arrest  in  this  case  can  be  justified  by  the  law  of  the 
land,  it  is  [forbidden]  to  the  aforesaid  Thomas  Musgrave  to  [depart]  from 
town  until  the  lord  the  king  shall  have  pronounced  his  will  in  that  behalf. 
And  the  aforesaiti  parties  were  told  that  as  they  wished  [to  sue]  the  afore- 
said Thomas  Musgrave  for  losses  in  this  .  .  .  they  should  sue  in  the  ex- 
chequer of  the  lord  the  king  ...  or  in  the  king's  court  appointed  for  such 
causes,  if  they  shall  see  [fit]. 


LOWESTOFT  v.  YARMOUTH ' 

A  Petition  of  Lowestoft 

1378  These  are  the  arguments  stated  by  the  people  of  Lowestoft,  poor  ten- 
ants of  our  lord  the  king,^  [to  prove]  that  the  bailiffs '  and  burgesses  of 
Yarmouth  ought  not  to  have  a  charter  of  franchises  touching  the  herrings 
in  the  fair  of  Kirkley  Road.* 

Also  that  as  in  the  time  of  the  King  Edward,  the  grandfather  of  our 
lord  the  king  that  now  is,*  it  was  ordained  in  parliament  by  statute  ^  that 
every  subject  of  the  reahn  should  be  able  to  buy  and  sell  all  merchandises 
and  victuals  without  impeachment  within  cities,  boroughs,  seaports,  and 
elsewhere,  and  if  charters  of  franchises  or  usages  or  patents  should  have 
been  granted  to  the  contrary,  they  should  be  held  for  null,  and  the  suit 
that  the  said  bailifTs  and  burgesses  are  now  bringing  to  have  a  charter 
contrary  to  the  said  statute  is  not  reasonable  and  [is]  against  the  said 
statute. 

Also  before  this  time  by  good  deUberation  of  all  the  lords  and  commons 
in  full  parliament  their  charter  was  repealed  for  profit  of  the  king  and  com- 
mons of  the  land  as  was  then  shewn  and  proved  in  the  said  parliament.^ 

Also  whereas  by  gift  of  God  the  ships  which  take  herring  put  in  at 
Kirkley  Road  near  the  said  town  of  Lowestoft  and  that  which  has  been 
taken  at  sea  the  merchants  and  mariners  of  the  said  ships  in  reason  and 
good  faith  ought  to  sell  [and]  to  land  their  merchandise  at  their  will,  and 

provosts;    after  which  time  it  elected  an-  *  See  Introduction,  p.  Ixxxix. 

nually  a  provost  and  four  baiUffs,  some-  '  Edward  III,  grandfather  of  Richard 

times  also  called  provosts.     H.  Swinden,  II. 

Hist,  of  Great  Yarmouth  (1772),   pp.  48,  •  25  Ed.  Ill,  St.  3,  c.  2  (1351). 

55.  '  1376.    Rot.  Pari.,  ii,  330. 


61  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

ditz  baillies  et  burgeys  pursuont  dauoir  un  chartre  qe  touz  les  niefs  deussent 
venir  a  Jernemuthe  encountre  la  volunte  des  Mariners  [est]  ce  encontre 
reson  et  bon  foy  et  encontre  le  commune  profit. 

Item  la  ou  en  le  temps  le  Roy  Edward  aiel  nostre  seignur  le  Roy  qorest 
en  plein  parlement  Ian  de  son  regne  xx^iij  estoit  ordine  par  estatut  pur 
profit  du  Roi  et  conmiunes  du  roialme  qe  nulle  maner  du  nief  qe  soit  frette 
deuers  Engleterre  ou  aillours  soit  arte  deuenir  a  nulle  porte  Dengleterre 
ne  demurer  encontre  le  gree  des  Mestres  et  ^lariners  dicelles  ou  des  Mar- 
chauntz  a  queux  les  bien  sont  le  quel  estatut  '  ne  estoit  unqes  repelle  et  en 
ee  qe  les  ditz  baillyes  et  burgeys  pursuont  dauoir  un  chartre  qe  touz  maners 
niefs  chargez  du  marchaundises  et  de  HarjTiges  et  queux  entront  en  Kyr- 
keleyrode  qest  vj  lewes  '  hors  de  la  dite  ville  du  Jernemuthe  les  queles 
voillent  vendre  lour  harj-nges  illoeqes  deussent  venir  au  dite  ville  de  Jerne- 
muthe la  dite  pursuite  est  a  contrarie  du  dit  estatut;  priantz  les  ditz  com- 
munes de  Lowestoft  qe  nulle  tiel  chartre  soit  graunte  encountre  le  dit  estatut 
esteant  le  dit  estatut  en  sa  force. 

Item  quant  auant  ces  heures  les  ditz  baillies  et  burgeys  de  Jernemuthe 
auoient  un  tiel  chartre  qe  touz  les  niefs  entrantz  en  KyrkelejTode  chargez 
de  marchandises  et  de  harjTiges  et  les  queles  voillent  lour  harj-nges  et  mar- 
chandises  iUoeqes  vendre  deussent  venir  a  Jernemuthe  encontre  la  volimte 
des  maistres  mariners  gratmt  damage  et  perde  anient  de  ce  pur  ce  qe  quant 
le  vent  estoit  en  partie  del  este  North  Xortheste  ou  Xorthweste  nulle  maner 
du  nief  purroit  entrer  en  la  dite  hauen  de  Jernemuthe,  et  par  taunt  qe  les 
Maistres  ne  purroient  vendre  lour  marchaundises  a  autres  a  lour  volunte 
les  haniTiges  estoient  peritz  et  gettez  a  la  foith  en  la  meer  par  les  mariners 
a  graunt  perde  des  communes  Dengleterre  par  quel  meschef  graunt  cherete 
a  este  de  harjiiges  quant  les  ditz  baillies  et  burgej-s  auoient  fraunchises.'" 

Item  pur  ce  qe  les  mariners  sont  constrenez  qils  ne  purroient  en  celles 
parties  vendre  lour  har>-nges  as  autres  qe  a  ceux  de  Jernemuthe  et  ce  a  lour 
volunte  par  cause  de  quel  constreinement  touz  les  mariners  aliens  amesnont 
lour  harj'nges  a  lour  parties  demesne  et  issint  graunt  cherete  de  harj-nges 
est  en  celles  parties  a  cause  susdit. 

Item  quant  les  harynges  deueinont  en  singulers  mains  issint  par  con- 
streinement par  colour  de  chartre  du  Roi  les  harynges  sont  le  plus  cheres 
a  cause  qe  les  ditz  singulers  persones  vendent  les  harjnges  a  lour  volunte. 

Item  la  ou  diverses  Pedelers  et  charreters  des  Countees  de  Cantebrigg, 
Oxenford,  Huntj'ngdon,  Bedeford,  Bukj-ngham,  Northampton,  Ley[cester], 
Essex  et  Sussex  soloient  venir  a  les  parties  de  NorfFolk  et  Suffolk  a  lour 
volunte  sanz  cohercion  et  illoeqes  achater  harj-ngcs  pur  vitailler  les  dites 
Countees,  les  ditz  Countees  ne  sont  ore  pas  vitaillez  par  les  ditz  pedelers 
et  charreters  a  cause  qe  les  ditz  pedelers  et  charreters  ne  purront  achater 

•  28  Ed.  Ill,  c.  13  (1354).  true  by  the  Inquisition  which  reported  on 

•  See  Introduction,  p.  Ixxxix,  n.  26  September,    1381.     See  Introduction, 
"  These  allegations  were  found  to  be      p.  xcii. 


LOWESTOFT  V.  YARMOUTH  61 

in  case  that  the  said  bailiffs  and  hurpessos  sue  to  have  a  charter  that  ail  the 
ships  ought  to  come  to  Yarmouth  against  tlic  wish  of  the  mariners,  and 
that  against  reason  and  good  faitli  and  against  the  common  profit. 

Also  whereas  in  the  lime  of  the  King  Edward  grandfather  of  our  lord 
the  king  that  now  is,  in  full  parliament  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  his  reign, 
it  was  ordained  by  statute  for  profit  of  the  king  and  commons  of  the  realm 
that  no  manner  of  ship  fraught  towards  England  or  elsewhere  be  compelled 
to  come  to  any  port  of  England  nor  to  remain  against  the  w'ill  of  the  masters 
and  mariners  of  such  ships,  or  of  the  merchants  whose  the  goods  be,  the 
which  statute*  was  never  repealed,  and  in  case  that  the  said  bailiffs  and 
burgesses  sue  to  have  a  charter  that  all  manner  of  ships  charged  with  mer- 
chandises and  herring  and  that  enter  into  Kirkley  Road,  which  is  six 
leagues'  from  the  said  town  of  Yannouth,  the  which  want  to  soli  their 
herring  there,  that  they  must  come  to  the  said  town  of  Yannouth,  the  said 
suit  is  contrary  to  the  said  statute.  The  said  commons  of  Lowestoft  [are] 
petitioners  that  no  such  charter  be  granted  contrarj'  to  the  said  statute, 
being  the  said  statute  in  force. 

Also  as  before  this  time  the  said  bailiffs  and  burgesses  of  Yarmouth  had 
such  a  charter  that  all  the  ships  entering  Kirkley  Road  charged  with  mer- 
chandise and  herring  that  wished  to  sell  their  herring  and  merchandise 
there  must  come  to  Yannouth  against  the  wish  of  the  masters  [and]  mari- 
ners, great  damage  and  loss  had  they  from  this,  because  when  the  wind  was 
in  the  East,  North,  Northeast,  or  Northwest  quarter  no  manner  of  ship 
could  enter  into  the  said  haven  of  Yarmouth,  and  for  so  much  as  that  the 
masters  could  not  sell  their  merchandise  to  others  at  their  will,  the  herrings 
were  spoilt  and  thrown  at  times  into  the  sea  by  the  mariners  to  the  great 
loss  of  the  commons  of  England,  by  which  mischief  there  has  been  great 
dearness  of  herring  when  the  said  bailiffs  and  burgesses  had  [the]  fran- 
chises.'" 

Also  because  that  the  mariners  are  constrained  so  that  they  should  not 
be  able  to  sell  their  herring  in  those  ports  to  othei-s  than  to  those  of  Yar- 
mouth and  that  at  their  will,  because  of  which  constraint  all  the  alien 
mariners  take  their  herring  to  their  own  countries  and  thus  there  is  great 
dearness  of  herring  in  those  ports  for  [the]  abovesaid  cause. 

Also  when  the  herring  pass  into  private  hands  thus  by  constraint  or 
pretext  of  the  king's  charter  the  herring  are  the  dearer  because  the  said 
private  persons  sell  the  herrings  at  their  will. 

Also  whereas  divers  pedlars  and  carters  of  the  counties  of  Cambridge, 
Oxford,  Huntington,  Bedford,  Buckingham,  Northampton,  Leicester, 
Essex,  and  Sussex  were  accustomed  to  come  to  the  parts  of  Norfolk  and 
Suffolk  at  their  will  without  coercion,  and  there  to  buy  herring  to  victual 
the  said  counties,  the  said  counties  are  not  now  victualled  by  the  said 
pedlars  and  carters  for  the  reason  that  the  said  pedlars  and  carters  will  not 
be  able  to  buy  herrings  save  at  the  will  of  those  of  Yarmouth  and  for  the 


62  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

harjTiges  forsqe  a  la  volunte  de  ceux  de  Jememuthe,  et  a  cause  qe  les  ditz 
Pedelers  et  charreters  ne  purront  venir  au  dite  ville  de  Jememuthe  pur  ceo 
qe  lour  couient  passer  deux  passages  vers  la  dite  ville  de  Jememuthe  par 
grauntz  risques  et  expenses." 

Item  plese  au  Roy  et  seignurs  qe  nulle  tiel  chartre  soit  graunte  as  ditz 
BaiUj-es  et  Burgej's  de  Jememuthe  a  contrarie  des  ditz  estatutz  et  en  dam- 
age et  decresse  de  touz  les  commimes  par  les  causes  auant  nomez  en  eoure 
de  charlte.'- 

B  Petition  of  Lowestoft 

1379       Haranges  .  .  . 

Ces  sont  certeins  causes  par  queux  la  chartre  .  .  .  par  nostre  Seignur 
le  Roy  graunte  as  baillifs  et  borgeys  de  Jememuthe  deit  estre  repelle." 

Pur  ceo  qe  en  temps  le  Roy  Edward  aiel  nostre  seignur  le  Roy  qore  est 
en  parlement  estoit  ordeine  par  estatut  qe  chescun  liege  de  roialme  purreit 
acatre  et  vendre  touz  marchandises  et  vitailles  sanz  enpechement  deinz 
Cites  Burghs  ports  du  Meer  et  aillours  et  si  chartres  du  fraunchises 
usages  ou  patents  fussent  grauntez  au  contrarie  serront  tenuz  pur  nulle.  Et 
en  cas  qe  les  ditz  baillifs  et  Burgej's  [ount]  ime  chartre  qe  nulle  achate 
entour  lour  dite  ville  par  sept  lieus  est  nounresonable  esteant  le  dit  estatut 
en  sa  force." 

Item  la  ou  en  temps  mesme  laiel  en  plein  parlement  Ian  du  son  regne 
xx-A'iij"^  estoit  ordeine  par  estatut  pur  profit  du  Roy  et  communes  du 
roiahne  qe  nulle  maner  de  Nief  qe  soit  frette  deuers  engleterre  ou  aillours 
soit  arte  de  venir  a  nulle  port  dengleterre  ne  demurer  en  centre  le  gree  des 
mestres  mariners  dycelles  ou  des  marchantz  as  quels  les  biens  sont  le  quel 
estatut  nestoit  unqes  repelle  '^  et  en  cas  qe  les  baiUies  et  burgeys  ount  une 
chartre  qe  touz  maners  niefs  chargez  des  marchandises  et  haranges  et 
queux  entrent  en  Kirkelerode  qest  en  le  Counte  de  Suffolk  et  sys  lieus  de 
la  dite  ville  de  Jememuthe  qest  en  le  Counte  de  Norffolk  queux  voillent 
vendre  les  haranges  illeoqes  dussent  venir  a  la  dite  ville  de  Jememuthe  est 
nounresonable,  e  a  contrarie  de  dit  estatut  esteant  le  dit  estatut  en  sa 
force. 

"  This  apparently  refers  to  the  topog-  God  and  in  the  way  of  Charite."     (Select 

raphy  of  Yarmouth.     "  For  as  Italy  is  Cases  in  the  Court  of  Req^iesls,  Selden  Soc, 

begirt  on  the  one  part  with  the  .\ips,  and  1S98,  p.  5,  &c :    SeUct  Ccises  in  the  Star 

on  the  other  three  with  the  Seas,  so  is  this  Chamber,  ib.,  1902,  p.  2,  &c.)    It  indicated 

Town  of  Yarmouth  with  the  main  Conti-  that  the  law  provided  no  remedy, 
nent  or  firm  land  on  the  north  part  only,  "  The  probable  date  of  tliis  document 

and  with  salt  waters  on  the  East,  South,  is  the  close  of   1379.     See  Introduction, 

and  West  parts."    Manship,  Hixt.  of  Great  pp.  xciii-xcv. 
Yarmouth  (1854),  p.  9;  cf.  ibid.,  p.  51.  The  main  differences  between  thisdocu- 

"  A  common  form  of  petition  to  the  ment   and  A,  on  which  it  is  based,  may 

council,  a  variant  being  "  for  the  love  of  be  seen  by  the  following  sjoioptical  table: 


LOWESTOFT   V,    YARMOUTH 


62 


reason  that  the  saitl  petUars  and  carters  will  not  be  able  to  come  to  the  said 
town  of  Yarmouth  because  they  must  make  two  passages  towards  the  said 
town  of  Yarmouth  at  preat  risks  and  costs." 

Also  may  it  please  the  king  and  lords  that  no  such  charter  be  granted 
to  the  said  Bailiffs  and  Burgesses  of  Yannouth  contrary  to  the  said  statute 
and  to  the  damage  and  decay  of  all  the  commons  by  the  causes  afore- 
named; as  a  work  of  charity.*^ 

B  Petition  of  Lowestoft 

1379      These  are  certain  causes  for  which  the  charter  granted  by  the  king  to 
the  bailiffs  and  burgesses  of  Yannouth  ought  to  be  repealed/^ 

Because  in  time  of  the  king  Edward,  grandfather  of  our  lord  the  king 
that  now  is,  it  was  ordained  in  parliament  by  statute  that  every  liege  of 
the  realm  should  be  able  to  buy  and  sell  all  merchandises  and  victuals  with- 
out impeachment  within  cities,  boroughs,  seaports,  and  elsewhere,  and  if 
charters  of  franchises  or  usages  should  have  been  granted  by  patent  to  the 
contrary  they  should  be  held  for  null.  And  in  case  that  the  said  bailiffs 
and  burgesses  [have]  a  charter  that  none  buy  around  their  town  for  seven 
leagues  it  is  not  reasonable,  the  said  statute  being  in  force. ^■* 

Also  whereas  in  the  time  of  the  same  grandfather  in  full  parliament  the 
twenty-eighth  year  of  his  reign  it  was  ordained  by  statute  for  profit  of  the 
king  and  commons  of  the  reahn  that  no  manner  of  ships  fraught  towards 
England  or  elsewhere  be  compelled  to  come  to  any  port  of  England  nor  to 
remain  against  the  will  of  the  masters  [and]  mariners  of  such  ships,  or  of 
the  merchants  whose  the  goods  be,  the  which  statute  was  never  repealed/^ 
and  in  case  that  the  bailiffs  and  burgesses  have  a  charter  that  all  manner 
of  ships  charged  with  merchandises  and  herring  and  that  enter  into  Kirkley 
Road  which  is  in  the  county  of  Suffolk  and  six  leagues  from  the  said  town 
of  Yarmouth  which  is  in  the  county  of  Norfolk  that  want  to  sell  their  herring 
there  that  they  must  come  to  the  said  town  of  Yarmouth  [it]  is  unreasonable 
and  contrary  of  the  said  statute  being  the  said  statute  in  force. 


Against  Grant  of  Charter 

1.  Statutory  freedom  of 
trade,  9  Ed.  Ill,  c.  1, 
(1335). 

2.  Former  revocation  of 
charter. 


3.  Yarmouth  seeks  com- 
pulsory powersagainst 
incoming  ships. 

4.  Statute  against  com- 
pulsion of  ships  to  a 
specified  port,  28  Ed. 
III.  c.  13  (1354). 

5.  Difficulty  of  approach 
to  Yarmouth.  Conse- 
quent losses  and  dear- 
neae  of  fish. 


B 

For  Revocation  of  Charter 

1.  Statutory  freedom  of 
trade,  9  Ed.  Ill,  c.  1 
(1335). 

2.  Statute  against  com- 
pulsion of  ships  to  a 
specified  port,  28  E. 
Ill.c.  13  (1354). 

3.  32  Ed.  Ill  (1357-8). 
Agreement  for  free- 
dom of  trade  during 
fair  at  Yarmouth. 

4.  Former  revocation  of 
Charter. 

5.  Compulsion  to  sell  in 
Yarmouth  unreason- 
able. 

6.  Difficulty  of  approach 
to  Yarmouth.  Conse- 
quent losses  and  deaf- 
ness of  fish. 


A 

Alien  mariners  with 
their  herrings  driven 
away. 

Monopoly  makes  her- 
rings dearer. 
Pedlars  and  carters 
prevented  victuaUing 
Eastern  and  Midland 
Counties,  &c. 


10. 


B 
Alien    mariners   with 
their  herrings  driven 
away. 

Monopoly  makes  her- 
rings dearer. 
Pedlars  and  carters 
prevented  victuaUing 
Eastern  and  Midland 
Counties. 

Offer  of  Lowestoft 
for  right  to  customs 
at  Kirkley  Road. 
Vexatious  prosecu- 
tions of  Lowestoft 
people  at  Yarmouth. 


"  9  Ed.  Ill,  c.  1  (1335). 
"  28  Ed.  Ill,  c.  13  (1354). 


63  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

Item  par  bone  deliberacion  des  seignurs  dengleterre  en  temps  mesme 
laiel  Ian  de  son  regne  xxxij''''  '*  acorde  fust  parentre  les  gentz  de  Jernemuthe 
et  les  gentz  de  Cjnik  ports"  et  les  tenantz  nostre  seignur  le  Roj-  de  Lowys- 
toft  a  cause  qe  les  ditz  baillifs  et  burgeys  de  Jernemuthe  pursueront  dauoir 
eu  une  tiele  chartre  come  ils  ount  a  ore  en  lacord  prist  deuant  le  dit  Roi  et 
son  conseil  qen  temps  de  feire  touz  gentz  purront  sanz  enpechement  achatre 
et  vendre  en  touz  les  vessels  qe  vuillont  en  la  dite  Rode  ancorer  quel  acord 
est  de  record  en  la  chaimcellerie  et  exemplifie  de?uz  le  seal  le  Roi  quel  acord 
est  defait  par  la  chartre  a  eux  graunte  esteant  la  dite  chartre  en  sa  force.'' 

Item  auant  ces  [heures]  par  bone  dehberacion  de  touz  les  seignurs  et 
communes  en  plein  parlement  lour  chartre  fust  repelle  pur  profit  du  Roy 
et  communes  de  la  terre  come  adonqe  estoit  monstre  et  proue  en  le  dit 
parlement." 

Item  la  ou  par  doun  de  dieu  les  niefs  quels  preignent  haranges  se  arrei- 
uent  en  Kirkelerode  jouste  la  dite  ville  de  Lowj'stoft  et  ceo  qe  fu  pris  en  la 
meet  de  reson  et  de  bone  f oy  les  marchant  z  et  mariners  des  ditz  niefs  dussent 
vendre  et  ariuer  lour  marchandise  a  lour  volunte  et  en  cas  qe  les  ditz  bailhfs 
et  burgeys  ount  une  chartre  qe  touz  les  niefs  dussent  venir  a  Jernemuthe 
encontre  la  volunte  des  mariners  est  encontre  reson  et  bone  foy  et  le  com- 
mime  profit. 

Item  quant  auant  ces  heures  les  ditz  baillifs  et  burgeys  de  Jernemuthe 
auoient  une  tiele  chartre  qe  touz  les  niefs  entrant  en  Kirkelerode  chargez 
des  marchandises  et  de  haranges  quels  veillcnt  lour  marchandises  et 
haranges  illeoqes  vendre  dussent  venir  a  Jernemuthe  encontre  la  volunte 
des  mestres  mariners  et  graund  damage  et  perde  vient  de  ceo  pur  ceo  qe 
quant  le  vent  estoit  en  partie  del  Est,  North  ou  Northest  ou  Northwest 
nulle  maner  de  nief  purroit  entrer  en  la  dite  hauene  de  Jernemuthe  et  par 
tant  qe  les  maryners  ne  poerent  vendre  lour  marchandises  as  autres  a  lour 
volunte  les  haranges  estoient  periz  et  gettez  a  la  foith  en  la  meer  par  les 
marj-ners  a  graund  perde  des  communes  dengleterre  par  quele  mischief 
graunde  chierte  ad  este  des  haranges  et  uncore  serra  si  autre  remedie  ne 
soit  ordeine  a  la  cause  susdite. 

Item  pur  ceo  qe  les  maryners  sount  constreintz  qils  ne  purront  en  celles 
parties  vendre  lour  haranges  as  autres  qe  a  ceux  de  Jernemuthe  et  ceo  a 
lour  volunte  par  cause  de  quele  constreinement  touz  les  maryners  aliens 
amesnont  lour  haranges  a  lour  parties  demesne  et  issint  grant  chierte 
de  haranges  est  en  celles  parties  et  uncore  serra  si  autre  remedie  ne  soit 
ordeine. 

"  This  was  an  order  of  the  council  "  The  Barons  of  the  Cinque  Ports  ap- 
dated  10  July,  1357,  known  as  the  Ordi-  pear  to  have  exercised  a  jurisdiction  at 
nance  of  Herring,  printed  in  the  Slalules  Yarmouth  from  time  immemorial  con- 
of  the  Realm  as  31  Ed.  Ill,  st.  2  (1357).  firmed  by  King  John,  Edward  I,  .ind  sub- 
Compare  Patent  Rolls,  574,  G54;  also  35  sequent  sovereigns.  Swinden,  p.  172,  &c. 
Ed.  Ill,  c.  1. 


LOWESTOFT  V.   YARMOUTH  63 

Also  by  good  deliberation  of  the  lords  of  England  in  the  time  of  the  said 
grandfather  the  thirty-second  year  of  his  reign  ""'  it  was  agreed  among  the 
people  of  Yarmouth  and  the  people  of  the  Cintiue  Ports  "  and  the  Lowes- 
toft tenants  of  our  lord  the  king,  because  that  the  said  bailiffs  and  burgesses 
of  Yarmouth  woukl  sue  to  have  had  such  a  charter  as  they  have  now, 
whereas  the  agreement  taken  l)cfore  the  said  king  and  his  council  that  in 
time  of  fair  all  people  shall  be  able  without  impeachment  to  buy  and  sell 
in  all  the  vessels  that  wish  to  anchor  in  the  said  Road,  which  agreement  is 
of  record  in  the  Chancerj'  and  exemplified  under  the  king's  seal,  which 
agreement  is  defeated  by  the  charter  granted  to  them,  being  the  said 
charter  in  its  force.'* 

Also  before  this  time  bj'  good  deliberation  of  all  the  lords  and  commons 
in  full  parliament  their  charter  was  repealed  for  profit  of  the  king  and  com- 
mons of  the  land  as  was  then  shewn  and  proved  in  the  said  parliament." 

Also  whereas  by  gift  of  God  the  ships  which  take  herring  put  in  at 
Kirkley  Road  near  the  said  town  of  Lowestoft  and  that  which  has  been 
taken  at  sea  the  merchants  and  mariners  of  the  said  ships  in  reason  and 
good  faith  ought  to  sell  and  to  land  their  merchandise  at  their  will,  and  in 
case  that  the  said  bailiffs  and  burgesses  have  a  charter  that  all  the  ships 
ought  to  come  to  Yannouth  against  the  wish  of  the  mariners  it  is  against' 
reason  and  good  faith  and  the  common  profit. 

Also  as  before  this  time  the  said  bailiffs  and  burgesses  of  Yarmouth  had 
such  a  charter  that  all  the  ships  entering  Kirkley  Road  charged  with  mer- 
chandise and  herring  that  wished  to  sell  their  merchandise  and  herring 
there  must  come  to  Yarmouth  against  the  wish  of  the  masters  [and]  mari- 
ners and  great  damage  and  loss  come  from  this  because  that  when  the 
wind  was  in  the  East,  North  or  Northeast  or  Northwest  quarter  no  manner 
of  ship  could  enter  in  the  said  haven  of  Yarmouth  and  thereby  that  the 
mariners  could  not  sell  their  merchandise  to  others  at  their  will,  the  herring 
were  spoilt  and  thrown  at  times  into  the  sea  by  the  mariners  to  the  great 
loss  of  the  commons  of  England,  by  which  mischief  there  has  been  great 
dearness  of  herring  and  yet  shall  be  if  other  remedy  be  not  ordained  for  the 
cause  aforesaid. 

Also  because  that  the  mariners  are  constrained  so  that  they  shall  not 
be  able  to  sell  their  herring  in  those  parts  to  others  than  to  those  of  Yar- 
mouth and  that  at  their  will,  because  of  which  constraint  all  the  aUen 
mariners  take  their  herring  to  their  own  countries  and  thus  there  is  great 
dearness  of  herring  in  these  parts  and  ever  shall  be  if  other  remedy  be  not 
ordained. 

"  This  was  the  charter  granted  during     John  of  Gaunt's  provisional  order  of  the 
the  session  of  the  parUament  at  Gloucester     previous  .\pril.    See  Introduction. 
in  October,  1378,  substantially  confirming         "  A  reference  to  the  revocation  of  1376. 

See  Introduction,  p.  xci. 


64  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

Item  quant  les  haranges  deuenent  en  singulars  meins  issint  par  con- 
streinement  par  colour  de  chartre  le  Roj'  les  haranges  sount  les  plus  chiers 
a  causes  qe  les  ditz  singulers  persones  vendount  les  haranges  a  lour  volunte. 

Item  la  ou  diverses  pedelers  et  charieters  de  Countees  de  Suffolk  Cante- 
brig'  Oxon'  Hunt'  Bedeford,  Buk'  Northt'  Lej-cestre  et  Essex  soleient  venir 
a  les  parties  de  Suffolk  et  Norfolk  a  lour  volunte  sanz  cohercion  et  illeoqs 
achater  haranges  pur  vitailler  les  ditz  Countees  les  ditz  Countees  ne  sount 
pas  ore  vitaillez  par  les  ditz  pedelers  et  charietters  a  cause  qe  les  ditz 
pedelers  et  charietters  ne  purront  achatre  haranges  forsqe  a  la  volunte  de 
ceux  de  Jernemuthe  et  a  cause  qe  les  ditz  pedelers  et  charietters  ne  purront 
venir  a  dite  ville  de  Jernemuthe  pur  ceo  qe  lour  couient  passer  deux  passages 
vers  la  dite  ville  de  Jernemuthe  par  grant  costages  et  expenses. 

Item  nostre  seignur  le  Roy  ad  grante  as  ditz  baillifs  et  burgej's  sa 
custume  en  la  dite  Rode  et  annexe  al  hauene  de  Jernemuthe  mesme  la 
Rode  et  ceo  pur  sent  souldz  a  lui  paier  par  an  a  cause  de  quele  doun  ^  cer- 
teins  gentz  de  Jernemuthe  meintenent  illeoqs  un  barge  oue  quatre  vinctz 
gentz  desdeinz  armez  a  feer  de  guerre  issint  qe  nulle  vessel  illeoqs  ose 
arriuer  pur  quel  custume  auoir  les  tenantz  nostre  seignur  le  Roi  de 
Lowystoft  et  issint  qe  touz  gentz  purroient  illoqes  achatre  et  vendre  dor- 
roient  au  Roi  par  an  xx  li.^' 

Item  certeins  gentz  de  Jernemuthe  pursuent  les  tenantz  nostre  dit 
seignur  le  Roi  de  Lowestoft  ^-  en  duierses  courts  le  Roy  ^'  pur  chose  qe  dust 
estre  fait  en  la  dite  Rode  le  quel  si  en  ascune  Countee  isoit  est  en  le  Counte 
de  Suffolk,  et  par  colour  de  dite  chartre  trient  par  gentz  de  Norfolk  et  eux 
condempnent  en  graunds  sommes  cestasauer  ascuns  en  xl  li.  et  ascuns  en 
xl  marcs  les  queux  ils  ne  purront  porter  lequel  est  encontre  la  ley  de  la 
terre  qe  gentz  dim  Counte  deyuent  trier  chose  fait  en  autre  Counte  ^*  issint 
qe  les  ditz  tenantz  le  Roy  illoeqes  par  tiels  fauxetes  soimt  destruitz  et  en 
apres  serront  et  les  communes  du  roialme  graundement  enpoueriz  a 
causes  susditz  si  la  dite  chartre  ne  soit  repelle. 

C  Answer  of  Yarmouth 

1380        Responce  ex  parte  Jernemuth'. 

Ceux  sont  les  responces  a  certcynes  articles  comprises  dejms  une  bille 
pursuy  par  certeynz  gentz  a  defaire  et  repellcr  la  chartre  de  Jernemuthe 
queux  articles  ou  les  responces  ensuont  en  la  forme  qe  ensuit. 

"  i.e.   grant.     This   was   on   22   Aug.  1393,   Lowestoft  came  to  an  agreement 

46  Ed.  Ill  (1372).    The  charter  is  printed  with  Yarmouth  to  farm  the  dues  taken  at 

at  length  in  Swinden,  History  of  Yarmouth,  Kirkley  Road,  for  which  it  paid  £23  per 

pp.  379-81.  annum,  raised  to  £26  in  the  year  following. 

"  This  was  a  bribe  of  £15  to  the  crown,  Swinden,  p.  643;   Gillingwater,  p.  134. 

Yarmouth  only  paying  £5  for  the  annexa-  "  Lowestoft,  in  Domesday  Lothu  W'is- 

tion  of   Kirkley   Road.     That   it   was  a  toft  in  the  manor  of  Gorlestun,  7'(Tr(i  fte?t> 

reasonable  offer  may  be  inferred  from  the  (A.  Snelling,  HiM.  Suffolk   (1846-48),   ii, 

fact   that   some   thirteen   years  later,   in  59).     "  Terra  Regis  "  marks  ancient  de- 


LOWESTOFT  V.   YARMOUTH  64 

Also  when  tlic  herring  pass  into  private  hands  thus  by  constraint  or 
pretext  of  the  king's  charter  the  herrings  are  the  dearer  because  the  said 
private  persons  sell  the  herrings  at  their  will. 

Also  whereas  divers  pedlars  and  carters  of  the  counties  of  Suffolk, 
Cambridge,  Oxford,  Huntingdon,  Bcilfortl,  Buckingliani,  Northampton, 
Leicester,  and  Essex  were  accustomed  to  come  to  the  parts  of  Suffolk  and 
Norfolk  at  their  will  without  coercion  and  there  to  buy  herring  to  victual 
the  said  counties,  the  said  counties  are  not  now  victualled  by  the  said  ped- 
lars and  carters,  for  the  reason  that  the  said  pedlars  and  carters  will  not  be 
able  to  come  to  the  said  town  of  Yarmouth  because  they  must  make  two 
passages  towards  the  said  town  of  Yarmouth  at  great  costs  and  charges. 

Also  our  lord  the  king  has  granted  to  the  said  bailiffs  and  burgesses  his 
customs  duty  in  the  said  Road  and  has  annexed  the  same  Road  to  the 
haven  of  Yarmouth  and  that  for  a  hundred  shillings  to  be  yearly  paid  to 
him,  because  of  which  gift  •'*'  certain  folk  of  Yarmouth  keep  there  a  barge 
manned  with  four  score  armed  men  to  make  war  so  that  no  vessel  is  able 
to  put  in  there,  to  have  which  custom  the  Lowestoft  tenants  of  our  lord 
the  king  (and  so  that  all  people  should  be  able  to  buy  and  sell  there)  would 
give  £20  yearly  to  the  king.^^ 

Also  certain  people  of  Yannouth  bring  action  against  the  Lowestoft 
tenants  of  our  said  lord  the  king  ^^  in  divers  of  the  king's  courts  ^'  for  what 
ought  to  be  done  in  the  said  Road  the  which  if  it  be  in  any  county  is  in  the 
count}^  of  Suffolk,  and  upon  pretext  of  the  said  charter  they  try  (them)  by 
Norfolk  people  and  condemn  them  in  great  sums,  to  wit,  some  in  £40  and 
some  in  40  marks,  which  they  will  not  be  able  to  bear.  This  against  the 
law  of  the  land  that  people  of  one  county  should  try  anything  done  in  an- 
other county,"  so  that  the  said  tenants  of  the  king  there  by  such  falsities 
are  well-nigh  destroyed  and  the  commons  of  the  realm  greatly  im- 
poverished for  the  reasons  abovesaid  if  the  .said  charters  be  not  lepealed. 

C  Answer  of  Yarmouth 

1380  These  are  the  answers  to  certain  articles  comprised  in  a  bill  promoted 
by  certain  persons  to  set  aside  and  repeal  the  charter  of  Yannouth,  which 
articles  with  the  answers  follow  in  the  following  fonn : 

mesne.     (See  E.  Coke,  4  Inst.,  pp.  269-  Charlas  of  28  Ed.  I,  the  sheriff  or  bailiff 

270.)    Hence,  the  men  of  Lowestoft  were  shall  put  on  a  jury  for  trying  an  issue  be- 

the  king's  tenants.  tween  king  and  subject,  or  between  party 

"  Legal  proceedings  had  been  carried  on  and   party,    "  lc(s)    plus   procheins  "    (E. 

at  intervals  since  1373.    See  an  indictment  Coke,  ^ /ns/.  5G0,  561).     Hence,  the  Hun- 

of  that  year  by  Yarmouth  against  Lowes-  drcdors  who  in  the  time  of  Ed.  Ill  regu- 

toft  men  in  Swinden,  p.  615.  larly   numbered   six    (Blackstone,   Covim. 

"  This  was  probably  good  law.    Glan-  iii,   c.  23)   which   implies   Hundredors   of 

ville,  it  is  true,  says  (xiii,  6),  "Ab  initio  one  county.     In  the  time  of  Fortescue, 

eligendi  sunt  duodecim   liberi   ct   legates  this  number  had  fallen  to  four  {De  Lavd- 

homines  de  visineto,"''writing  of  the  jury  ihxis,c.  xxv).     Under  Elizabeth,  it  was  de- 

of  possessory  assizes.    In  the  Arliculi  super  termined  by  all  the  judges  that  the  juror 


65  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

Responcio  ad  primum  articulum  qui  incipit:  pur  ceo  qe  en  temps  le 
Roy  E.  aiel  nostre  seignur  le  Roy  qore  est  en  parlement  estoit  ordeigne  par 
estatut  qe  checon  lige  de  Realme  porreyt  achatere  et  vendre  etc.-^ 

La  dite  chartre  nest  past  grante  a  contrarie  del  dit  estatut  a  cause  qe 
touz  gentz  si  bien  alienes  come  de>Tise>Ties  par  la  dite  chartre  sont  frankes 
de  vendre  et  achatre  haranges  et  touz  autres  Marchandizes  a  grant  Jerne- 
muthe  durant  la  feire  illeoqes  sanz  destorbance  de  nulh%**  et  si  nul  singuler 
persone  eit  rienz  mespris  encountrc  lestatut  en  la  chartre  suisdite  soit 
[ame]sne  en  responce  et  punyz  solonk  la  quantite  de  son  trespas  et  outre 
ceo  il  nyad  feire  ne  niarche  dejms  les  ditz  vij  leukes  par  grant  nostre 
seignur  le  Roy  par  title  de  prescripcion  neu  autre  manere  en  taunt  qe  si 
les  ventes  et  achates  fuissent  suffertz  deinz  les  ditz  vii  leukes  de  haranges 
ou  des  autres  marchandises  ceo  serroit  sanz  garrant  et  en  destruccion  de 
la  dite  feire  qe  ne  doit  estre  suffert  par  estatut  ne  par  nulle  ley  con- 
siderez  les  grantz  charges  qe  la  ville  de  grant  Jernemuthe  emporte  deuers 
nostre  seignur  le  Roy  pur  la  feire  suisdite  "  et  qe  la  dite  ville  ne  poet 
estre  suistenuz  si  la  dite  feire  soit  par  tiels  ventes  et  achates  destroitz. 

Responcio  ad  secundum  articulum  cjui  incipit:  Item  la  ou  en  temps 
mesme  laj'el  en  plein  parlement  Ian  de  son  regne  xxviij  etc.'' 

Lestatut  fait  en  le  dit  an  xx^•iij  en  partie  ad  perdu  sa  force  qe  par  le- 
statut fait  de  puisne  temps  est  ordeigne  qe  nul  harange  soit  vendu  en  le  meer 
nen  Kirkelerode  tanqe  les  niefs  seient  venuz  al  ville  de  Jernemuthe  et  les 
cordes  des  niefs  tretz  sur  la  terre  illeoqes  le  quele  estatut  estiet-'  unqore 
en  sa  force  nient  repellc  et  les  pessoners  sont  a  lour  tranche  volunte  daler 
ou  lour  haranges  ou  lour  plest  sauue  qe  ils  ne  vendront  poynt  deynz  les  ditz 
vij  leukes  a  cause  come  desuis  est  premis. 

Responcio  ad  tertium  articulum  qui  incipit:  Item  par  bone  delibera- 
cion  de  seignours  Dengleterre  en  temps  mesme  laiel  Ian  de  son  regne  xxxij 
acorde  fuit  parentre  les  gentz  de  Jernemuthe  les  gentz  de  v.  portz  et  les 
tenantz  nostre  seignour  le  Roy  de  Lowestoft.** 

Le  dit  acord  est  anientiz  et  repelle  a  cause  qe  il  est  trouue  nonresonable 
come  piert  par  diuers  enquerres  et  examinemcntz  fait  dcuant  mon  seignour 
le  Counte  de  Suffolk  et  autres  sages  Justices  assignes  par  comission  nostre 
seignour  le  Roj^  des  quels  enquerres  et  examinementz  par  force  de  la  dite 

"  must  have  freehold  in  that  county  where  there."  (Rot.  Pari,  iii,  49.)  Of.  also  the 
the  cause  of  action  ariseth,  and  though  he  Stafuteof  Herrinps,  31  Ed. Ill,  st.  2  (13.57). 
hath  in  another,  it  sufficeth  not."  (/  In.^t.  The  fair  lasted  from  Michaelma.«  (29  Sep- 
157  a.)  The  suggestion  here  is  that  the  tember)  to  St.  Martin's  day  (11  Novem- 
cause  of  action  arose  in  Suffolk.  ber),  during  which  time  Yarmouth  was 
"  9  Ed.  Ill,  c.  1.  the  resort  of  a  "  great  store  of  sea-faringe 
"  A  provi.so  was  inserted  in  the  charter  men,  as  also  of  grcatc  numbers  of  the 
of  1378,  "  that  all  manner  of  people,  as  fishermen  of  Fraunce,  Flaundors,  and  of 
well  denizens  as  strangers,  may  freely  sell  Holland,  Zealande,  and  all  the  low  coun- 
and  buy  herring  within  the  said  town,  dur-  tryes."  Palmer,  p.  67. 
ing  their  fair,  without  any  impeachment  "  A  hundred  shillings  yearly  (in  ad- 
whatsoever,  and  as  freely  as  the  denizens  dition  to  the  fee  farm  of   £55  fixed  by 


LOWESTOFT  V.   YARMOUTH  65 

Answer  to  the  first  article  wliieli  hegins:  "  Beeiiuse  in  time  of  the  king 
Edward,  grandfather  of  our  lord  the  king  that  now  is,  it  was  ordained  in 
parliament  by  statute  that  every  liege  of  the  realm  should  be  able  to  buy 
and  sell,  etc."  ^* 

The  said  charter  has  not  been  granted  contrary  to  the  said  statute,  be- 
cause all  persons  as  well  aliens  as  denizens  are  by  the  said  charter  free  to 
sell  and  buy  herring  and  all  other  merchandise  at  Great  Yannouth  during 
the  fair  there  without  disturbance  of  any,^^  and  if  any  private  person  has 
in  any  way  offended  against  the  statute  in  the  charter  abovesaid  he  may 
be  brought  to  answer  and  pimished  according  to  the  amount  of  his  trespass, 
and  besides  this  there  is  neither  fair  nor  market  within  the  said  seven 
leagues  by  grant  of  our  lord  the  king  by  title  of  prescription  nor  otherwise 
insomuch  that  if  sales  and  purchases  had  been  suffered  within  the  said 
seven  leagues  of  herrings  or  of  other  merchandises  it  would  be  without 
warrant  and  to  the  ruin  of  the  said  fair,  which  ought  not  to  be  suffered  by 
statute  nor  by  anj'  law  considering  the  great  charges  that  the  town  of 
Great  Yarmouth  bears  towards  our  lord  the  king  for  the  fair  abovesaid,^' 
and  that  the  said  town  can  not  be  maintained  if  the  said  fair  be  by  such 
sales  antl  purchases  ruined. 

Answer  to  the  second  article  which  begins:  "Also  whereas  in  time  of 
the  same  grandfather  in  full  parliament  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  his 
reign,  etc."  ^^ 

The  statute  made  in  the  said  twenty-eighth  j'ear  has  in  part  lost  its 
force  [because]  that  by  the  statute  made  at  a  later  time  it  is  ordained  that 
no  herring  be  sold  at  sea  nor  in  Kirklej'  Road  until  the  ships  be  come  to 
the  town  of  Yarmouth  and  the  ships'  ropes  drawn  on  to  the  land  there, 
the  which  statute  is  ^'  yet  in  force  unrepealed  and  the  fishennen  are  at  their 
free  will  to  go  with  their  herring  where  they  please,  save  that  they  shall  not 
sell  anj'thing  within  the  said  seven  leagues  for  the  reason  premised  as  above. 

Answer  to  the  third  article  which  begins:  "  Also  by  good  deliberation 
of  the  lords  of  England  in  the  time  of  the  same  grandfather  the  thirtj^- 
second  year  of  his  reign  it  was  agreed  among  the  people  of  Yannouth,  the 
people  of  the  Cinque  Ports,  and  the  Lowestoft  tenants  of  our  lord  the 
king."  "> 

The  said  agreement  is  annulled  and  repealed  because  found  unreason- 
able, as  appears  by  divers  inquiries  and  examinations  made  before  my  lord 
the  Earl  of  Suffolk  and  other  wise  justices  appointed  by  commission  of 
our  lord  the  king,  of  which  inquiries  and  examinations  by  force  of  the  said 

King  John)  by  the  charter  of  22  August,  bought  or  sold  in  the  Sea,  till  the  Fishers 

46  Ed.  Ill  (1372).     See  Swinden,  p.  379,  be  come  with  their  Herring,  and  that  the 

n.  cargo  of  the  ship  be  drawn  to  the  land," 

"  See  n.  15,  supra.  where  the  translator  in  the  Statutes  of  the 

"  This  refers  to  the  Statute  of  Herrings  Realm   incorrectly   renders   "  corde  "    by 

of  1357,  three  years  later,  of  which  the  "  cable."    31  Ed.  Ill,  st.  2. 

first  clause  was:    "  That  no  Herring  be  "  See  n.  16,  supra. 


66  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

coniission  pleyn  relacion  est  fait  par  mon  dit  seignour  et  les  autres  sages 
suisditz  en  lour  darreyn  parlement  tenuz  a  Gloueestre. 

Responcio  ad  quartum  articulmn  qui  incipit:  Item  auant  ces  heures 
par  bone  deliberacion  de  touz  les  seigneurs  et  communes  en  plej-n  parle- 
ment pur  profit  du  Roj'  et  communes  de  la  terre  lour  chartre  etc. 

La  dite  chartre  fuit  repelle ''  sanz  responce  et  demurra  repelle  tanqe  la 
relacion  fuit  faite  en  parlement  a  Gloucestere  come  desuis  est  dit  par  quele 
relacion  et  plusours  autres  euidentes  causes  monstres  en  le  dit  parle- 
ment de  Gloueestre  par  assent  de  mesme  le  parlement  pur  honour  et  profit 
de  nostre  seignour  le  Roy  et  del  realme  une  nouele  chartre  fuit  grante'^  al 
dite  ville  de  Jernemuthe  dauoir  et  enjoj'er  touz  lour  franchises  si  auant 
come  ils  aueient  auant  le  dit  repel. 

Responcio  ad  quintum  articulum  qui  incipit:  Item  la  ou  par  don  de 
dieu  les  niefs  qe  preignent  haranges  en  Kii-kelerode  etc. 

Les  pessoners  sont  frankes  de  passer  oue  lour  haranges  ou  lour  plest 
come  desuis  est  dit  sauue  qils  ne  vendront  pas  lour  haranges  en  la  dite  rode 
a  cause  suisdite  qe  ceo  est  aperte  forstalrie ''  et  souent  foith  deuant  ces 
houres  plusurs  gentz  pur  tielz  forstalries  en  la  dite  rode  unt  este  endites  et 
unt  fait  lour  fine  par  eel  cause  a  nostre  seignour  le  [Roy]  come  piert  par 
recorde  en  lescheker.^^ 

Responcio  ad  sextum  articulmn  qui  incipit :  Item  qant  auant  ces  houres 
les  ditz  baillifs  et  burgeys  auient  tiele  chartre  qe  touz  les  niefs  entrant  en 
Kyrkelerode  etc. 

Les  pessoners  poent  vendre  lour  haranges  a  lour  volunte  come  desuis 
est  dit  et  en  temps  de  pescherie  '^  touz  les  niefs  apellez  fissheres  poent  bien 
entrer  d[einz  le]  p[ort]  de  Jernemuthe  en  quele  partie  qe  le  vent  soit  sil  ne 
soit  par  cause  de  grant  tempeste  et  qe  adonqes  hom  ad  use  de  tout 
temps  damener  le  haranges  deinz  le  dit  port  par  certej-ns  vessels  appelez 
lyghteres  '*  et  illeoqes  vendre  en  la  dite  feire  sanz  nul  harang  jeter  en  le 
meer  come  les  gentz  de  Jernemuthe  serrount  prestz  a  prouer  en  pleyn 
parlement. 

"  In  1376  by  an  order  in  Council.    See  suffered  to  dwell  in  any  town,  which  is  an 

Gillingwater,  p.  128,  n.  and  Introduction,  open  oppressor  of  Poor  People,  and  of  all 

p.  xciii,  supra.  the  Commonalty,  and  an  Enemy  of  the 

"  24  November,  1378.  whole  Shire  and  Country,  which  for  Greed- 

"  This  is  perhaps  taken  from  the  Ordi-  iness  of  his  private  Gain  doth   prevent 

nance  of  Herrings,  of  1357,  which  enacts  others  in  buying  Grain,  Fish,  Herring,  or 

"que  .  .  .  nul   autre   qui   que   ceo   soit,  any  other  Thing  to  be  sold  coming  by  Land 

venant  a  la  dite  feyre,  naille  par  mier  ne  or  Water,  oppressing  the  Poor  and  deceiv- 

par  terre  de  forstaller  le  harang  en  prive  ing  the  Rich,  which  carrieth  away  such 

nen  aperte,"  &c.    The  legislature  was  very  Things,  intending  to  sell  them  more  dear; 

severe  upon  forestallers,  whose  offence  is  the  which  come  to  Merchants  Strangers 

set  out  in  the  thirteenth-century  S^aluiiim  that  bring  merchandize,  offering  to  buy, 

de  Pisloribus,  &c.,  printed   in  Statutes  of  and    informing    them    that    their    Goods 

the  Realm,  I,  202,  as  follows:    "  But  espe-  might  be  dearer  sold  than  they  intended 

cially  be  it  commanded  on  the  Behalf  of  to  sell,  and  a  whole  Town  or  a  Country  is 

our  lord  the  King,  that  no  Forestaller  be  deceived  by  such  Craft  and  Subtilty,"  &c. 


LOWESTOFT  V.   YARMOUTH  66 

commission  full  report  has  been  made  by  my  said  lord  and  the  other  wise 
[justices]  aforesaid  in  their  last  parliament  held  at  Gloucester. 

Answer  to  the  fourth  article  which  begins:  "  Also  before  this  time  by 
good  deliberation  of  all  the  lords  and  commons  in  full  parliament  for  profit 
of  the  king  and  commons  of  the  land  their  charter,  etc." 

The  said  charter  was  revoked  "  without  reply  and  remained  revoked 
until  the  report  was  made  in  parliament  at  Gloucester  as  above  said.  By 
this  report  and  sundry  other  evident  reasons  shewn  ui  the  said  parliament 
of  Gloucester  by  assent  of  the  same  parliament  for  the  honour  and  profit 
of  our  lord  the  king  and  of  the  realm  a  new  charter  was  granted  '^  to  the 
said  town  of  Yarmouth  to  have  and  enjoy  all  their  franchises  as  well  as 
they  had  [them]  before  the  said  repeal. 

Answer  to  the  fifth  article  which  begins:  "  Also  whereas  by  gift  of  God 
the  ships  which  take  herrings  in  Kirkley  Road,  etc." 

The  fishermen  are  free  to  pass  with  their  herrings  where  they  please  as 
has  been  said  above  save  that  they  shall  not  sell  their  herrings  in  the  said 
road  for  the  cause  above  said  that  it  is  open  forestalling ''  and  oftentimes 
before  this  sundry  persons  for  such  forestallings  in  the  said  road  have  been 
indicted  and  have  made  their  fine  for  this  cause  to  our  lord  the  [king]  as 
appears  by  record  in  the  Exchequer.'^ 

Answer  to  the  sixth  article  which  begins:  "  Also  as  before  this  time  the 
said  bailiffs  and  burgesses  had  such  a  charter  that  all  the  ships  entering 
Kirkley  Road,  etc." 

The  fishermen  can  sell  their  herring  at  their  will  as  is  abovesaid  and  in 
the  fishing  season  '^  all  the  ships  called  fishers  can  certainly  enter  into  the 
port  of  Yarmouth  in  whatever  quarter  the  wind  may  be  unless  it  be  not 
[possible]  because  of  a  great  storm  and  that  then  one  has  at  all  times  used 
to  bring  the  herring  within  the  said  port  by  certain  vessels  called  lighters  " 
and  there  to  sell  them  in  the  said  fair  without  throwing  any  herring  into 
the  sea  as  the  people  of  Yarmouth  will  be  ready  to  prove  in  full  parliament . 

For  the  punishment  see  next  note.     The  They  return  to  their  former  haunts  alsout 

operations  of  forestallers  in  the  Yarmouth  the  commencement  of  December.   Palmer, 

herring  trade  are  set  out  in  detail  in  the  p.  308.    "  The  mackerel  fisherj-  is  another 

ordinance    of    herrings   of   20    February,  great  source  of  employment  and  profit. 

35  Ed.  Ill  (1361),  printed  in  the  Statutes  It  commences  on  the  tenth  of  May,  and 

of  the  Realtn,  i,  369.  ends  on  the  tenth  of  July."     Ibid.  p.  312. 

"  If  convicted  on  indictment,  the  whole  ''  The   inquisition   held   at   Weybrede, 

value  was  forfeited  to  the  king:    if  at  suit  Suffolk,  dated  29  July,  1372,  which  pre- 

of  the  party  grieved,  half  to  the  prosecutor  ceded  the  charter  of  26  .Vugust,  following, 

and  half  to  the  king.    The  buyer  was  hable  returned  that  "  the  entry  to  the  harbour 

to  a  fine  of  the  amount  paid  l)y  him,  and  has  been  so  dried  up  of  late  that  no  laden 

in  default  two  years'  imprisonment.     25  ship  can  enter  there  in  the  harbour  afore- 

Ed.  Ill,  St.  3,  c.  3  (1351).  said  unless  it  first  be  unladen  in  the  afore- 

"  Herrings  appear  at  the  Norfolk  coast  said    place    called    Kirkelee-Rode,"    &c. 

the  last  week  of  September,  for  the  purpose  (Swinden,  p.  378).     Hence  the  need  of 

of  spawning,  and  are  then  in  the  best  con-  lighters, 
dition  to  become  the  food  of  man.  .  .  . 


67  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

Responcio  ad  septimum  articulum  qui  incipit:  Item  pur  ceo  qe  les 
manmers  sont  constreyntz  qe  ils  ne  puent  en  celle  partie  vendre  lour 
haranges  etc. 

Les  manTiers  sont  a  lour  volunte  come  desuis  est  premys  et  de  tout 
temps  unt  use  daler  cue  lour  haranges  en  lour  parties  demesne  qant  le  vent 
lour  sert;  sanz  ceo  qe  les  ditz  mariners  sont  constreyntz  come  desuis  est  dit, 
come  les  gentz  de  Jememuthe  serront  prestz  a  prouer  en  ceste  presents 
parlement. 

Responcio  ad  octauum  articulum  qui  incipit:  Item  qant  les  harangges 
deueignent  en  singulers  meyns  etc. 

Le  harang  nest  pas  vendu  par  constreynement  qar  la  feire  de  Jememuthe 
est  frank  come  desuis  est  dit,  et  si  nul  singuler  persone  eit "  mespris  en 
prejudice  de  la  dite  feire  seit  puny  pur  son  trespas  come  desuis  est  dit. 

Responcio  ad  nouimi  articulum  qui  incipit:  Item  la  ou  diuers  Pedlers 
et  chariotterz  des  Countes  de  Suffolk,  Cauntebrig,  Oxon,  Hunt',  Bedeford, 
Buk',  Northamt',  Leicestre  et  Essex  etc. 

Touz  les  Countes  Dengleterre  forpris  le  Counte  de  Suffolk  poent  avoir 
bone  et  esee  passage  ou  chiua[ux]  [et]  charettes  al  ville  de  Jememuthe  sanz 
passage  de  ewe  et  ill[oeqes  ach]atre  haranges  a  mesme  .  .  .  qe  en  la  dite 
rode  ou  aillours  sanz  estre  mis  a  tiels  outrageouses  costages  et  dispences. 

[Responcio]  ad  decimum  articulum  qui  incipit :  Item  nostre  seignour  le 
Roy  ad  graunte  [as]  ditz  Baillifs  et  Burg[eys  sa  custume]  en  la  dite  rode  et 
annexe  al  dit  hauene  etc. 

Le  haranges  venduz  en  la  dite  rode  en  temps  de  pes[cherie]  ...  les 
vessels  hors  des  quels  .  .  .  haranges  est  venduz  sont  forfctahles  a  nostre 
seignur  le  Roy  '*  des  queux  forfetures  les  baillifs  de  Jer[nemuthe]  deuont 
respondre  come  pleignement  appiert  par  la  dite  chartre  ''  et  par  celle  cause 
unt  ils  un[e  bajrge  .  .  .  xx  oue  xxx  persones  et  alafoith  plusurs  et  a  la  foith 
meyns  tus  gentz  bien  conus  et  de  bon  [fame]  et  ne  mie  a  fcer  de  guerre  de 
eeisir  les  dites  forfetures  al  oeps  nostre  seignur  le  Roy  sanz  ri[en]  .  .  .  en- 
countre  la  pees  et  de  graunter  une  feire  en  Kirklerode  pur  xx  li.  par  aan 
serroit  gr[and]  damage  et  distres  a  nostre  seignur  le  Iloj'  et  tout  le  realme 
qar  ceo  serroit  en  distruccion  de  la  dite  v[ille  de]  Jememuthe  quele 
ville  ad  fait  plusurs  honours  ct  profitz  as  nobles  progenitours  nostre 
[seignur  le  Roy]  et  al  dit  realme  come  bien  est  conus  par  plusurs  seignours 
Dengleterre  et  de  la  quele  vi[lle]  .  .  .  le  Roy  prit  *"  annuelment  a  fea 

"  MS.  "eu"  or  "en,"  I  emend  "eit,"  or  buy  any  herrings  or  other  wares,  on 

"  en  "  giving  no  .sen.se.  account  of  merchandising,  Imt  only  at  the 

"  The  charter  of  1:J78  "granted  and  con-  town  of  Great  Yarmouth  or  in  the  haven 

finned  to  the  burges.se8,  &c.  .  .  .  the  lib-  of  the  same,  upon  forfeiture  of  the  ships 

erties  and  privileges  to  them  by  our  grand-  and  boats  so  to  be  hided  or  unladed,  and 

father    formerly  so  given   and   granted"  the  herrings  and  other  merchandises,  which 

(See  iSwinden,  p.  020.)    This  restored  the  shall  so  happen  to  be  laded,  or  unladed,  or 

charter  of  46  Ed.  Ill  (20  August,  1372),  from  that  time  to  be  put  to  sale  in  such 

which  forbade  "  to  hold  any  fair,  or  to  sell  fairs,  or  elsewhere  by  way  of  merchandiz- 


LOWESTOFT  V.  YARMOUTH  07 

Answer  to  the  seventh  article  which  begins:  "  Also  because  that  the 
mariners  are  constrained  so  that  they  are  not  able  to  sell  their  herrings  in 
that  part,  etc." 

The  mariners  are  at  their  own  will  as  is  premised  above  anil  at  all  times 
have  used  to  go  with  their  herrings  into  their  own  parts  where  the  wind 
serves  them.  Without  that  the  said  mariners  are  constrained  as  is  above 
said,  as  the  people  of  Yamiouth  will  be  able  to  prove  in  this  present  parlia- 
ment. 

Answer  to  the  eighth  article  which  begins:  "  Also  when  the  herrings 
pass  into  private  hands,  etc." 

Herring  is  not  sold  by  constraint,  for  the  fair  of  Yarmouth  is  free  as 
abovesaid,  and  if  any  iirivate  person  should  have  misdone  to  the  prejudice 
of  the  said  fair  he  may  be  punished  for  his  trespass  as  is  abovesaid. 

Answer  to  the  ninth  article  which  begins:  "  Also  whereas  divers  pedlars 
and  carters  of  the  Counties  of  Suffolk,  Cambridge,  Oxford,  Huntingdon, 
Bedford,  Buckingham,  Northampton,  Leicester,  and  Essex,  etc." 

All  the  counties  of  England  except  the  County  of  Suffolk  can  have 
good  easy  passage  with  horses  [and]  carts  to  the  town  of  Yarmouth 
without  ferry  of  them  and  there  buj'  herring  at  the  same  ...  as  in 
the  said  road  or  elsewhere  without  being  put  to  such  excessive  costs  and 
expenses. 

[Answer]  to  the  tenth  article  which  begins:  "  Also  our  lord  the  king  has 
granted  to  the  said  bailiffs  and  burgesses  his  customs-duty  in  the  said  Road 
and  has  annexed  to  the  said  haven,  etc." 

The  herrings  sold  in  the  said  road  in  fishing  time  .  .  .  the  vessels  out- 
side of  these  .  .  .  herrings  is  sold  are  forfeitable  to  our  lord  the  king,"  for 
which  forfeitures  the  bailiffs  of  Yarmouth  nmst  answer  as  plainly  appeareth 
by  the  said  charter  ^^  and  for  this  reason  they  have  a  barge  .  .  .  twenty 
or  thirty  persons  and  sometimes  more  and  sometimes  less,  all  well  known 
men  and  of  good  [fame]  and  not  to  make  war  [but]  to  seize  the  said  for- 
feitures to  the  use  of  our  lord  the  king  without  anything  [doing]  against 
the  peace.  And  to  grant  a  fair  in  Kirkley  Road  for  twenty  pounds  yearly 
would  be  a  great  loss  and  damage  to  our  lord  the  king  and  the  whole 
realm,  for  this  would  be  to  the  ruin  of  the  said  town  of  Yarmouth,  which 
town  has  done  many  honourable  and  profitable  [services]  to  the  noble  pro- 
genitors of  our  (lord  the  king]  and  to  the  said  realm  as  is  well  known  by 
many  lords  of  England.    And  of  this  town  .  .  .  the  king  takes  yearly  for 

ing,  oontrarj'  to  the  said  prohil)ition,  to  be  shall  inquire  from  time  to  time,  and  take 

applied  to  the  ii.ses  of  us  and  our  heirs."  them  into  the  hand  of  us,  and  cause  them 

Ibid.  ;J81.  to  l)e  .safely  kept  for  our  use,  and  answer 

"  The  charter  continues:    "Of  whioh  to  us  and  our  heirs  thereupon  into  the 

forfeitures   aforesaid   we   will,    and   have  Kxehequer  .  .  .  every  year  at  the  terms 

granted  for  us  and  our  heirs,   that   the  of  St.  Michael  and  Easter."'    Ibid, 

bailiffs  .  .  .  for  the  time  being  may  and  '"  Probably  for  "  print,"  "  takes." 


68  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

femie  x  li."  et  a  checun  xv.  leue  deinz  le  realme  *-  .  .  .  plusurs  autres 
profitz. 

Responcio  ad  undecimum  articulum  qui  incipit:  Item  cert[ems  gentz] 
de  Jernemuthe  pursuont  les  tenauntz  nostre  seignur  le  Roy  de  Lowistoft 
en  diuers  court  .  .  .■"  La  chartre  nest  mie  repellable  par  cause  de  ceste 
article  mes  si  nul  singuler  persone  eit  tres[passe] "  encontre  le  dit  article 
seit  mesne  en  responce  et  puny  pur  son  trespas  sil  soit  troue  .... 

Plese  a  nostre  seignour  le  Roj-  et  as  nobles  seignours  de  parlement  de 
sauoir  et  entend[re]  .  .  .  de  la  graunt  chierte  de  haranges  qe  ad  este  ore 
en  ceste  aan  et  unqore  est  qe  la  fei[re]  y  de  Skardeburgh  *^  et  de  Whiteby  *^ 
faillist  come  bien  est  conuz  as  gentz  de  celles  parties  ...  les  costes 
parentre  1  .  .  .  Jernemuthe  il[s]  naueint  nul  harang  pris  en  ceste  a[an]  .  .  . 
qe  il  nauoit  nul  harang  de  acompter  .  .  .  non  a  Jernemuthe  et  ille[oqes]  " 
.  .  .  pas  penduz  la  qarte  partie  de  harang  .  .  .  penduz  illeoqes  ^*  de  .  .  . 
et  nient  mejTis  mil  last  ^'  de  harang  en  le  darrejTi  pescherie  fuit  venduz  a 
...  en  ceste  aan  entre  L\  mar[iners  ?],  issjTit  qe  de  resun  de  bon  .  .  . 
la  dite  ch[ie]rte  .  .  .  arette  par  cause  de  la  dite  chartre  de  Jernemuthe. 

[Endorsed:]   F Parlement   tenuz   a  Westminster  le  .  .  . 

Sainct  Hiller  Ian  nostre  seignur  le  Roj'  *".... 

D  Replication'  of  Lowestoft 

Harang 

[Secunda]''  replicacio  facta  ex  parte  communitatis  Sufif'  ad  respon- 
sionem  .... 

Le  primer  respounce  qils  cunt  done  nest  pas  respounce  pur  mej-ntener 
lour  chartre  encountre  lestatut  car  couient  qe  tels  .  .  .  sont  frankez  de 

"  This  is  incorrect,  and  should  be  LV.  gests  that  Yarmouth  only  paid  fift«enths. 

There  is  some  sign  that  the  clerk  was  un-  The  Rev.  W.  Hudson  has  printed  in  Nor- 

certain,  a  space  being  left  which  would  folk  Archaeologj-,  XII,  243  (1895),  "  The 

allow  for  the  V;  but  the  MS.  is  much  de-  Assessment    of    the    Townships    of    the 

faced.  County  of  Norfolk  for  the  King's  Tenths 

"  By  the  assessment  of  1334,  which  long  and  Fifteenths,  as  settled  in  1334."    The 

remained  a  fixed  composition  for  fifteenths  indenture  which  prefaces  the  list  describes 

and  tenths,  the  tenth  was  levied  on  cities,  it  as  a  "  Tenth  from  the  Cities,  Boroughs, 

boroughs,  and  lands  of  ancient  demesne,  and  Demesnes  of  the  king,  and  a  Fifteenth 

and   the  fifteenth  on    the  counties   gen-  from  the  Commonalty  of  the  County." 

erally    {Rot.   Pari,   ii,   447).     The  higher  Here  Yarmouth's  is  the  highest  assess- 

scale  of  taxation  on  the  former  class  was  ment,  viz.  £100.     Norwich,  which  ranks 

doubtless  to  balance  their  special  privi-  next,  is  assessed  at  £94  12/.    It  has  been 

leges.    Here,  a  fifteenth  is  presumablj-  an  seen  in  the  Introduction   (p.  xc,  supra) 

abbreviated   form   of   "  a   Fifteenth   and  that  Yarmouth  in  1378  professed  to  have 

Tenth."    In  1377  two  fifteenths  and  tenths  been    injured    by    the   revocation    of   its 

were  granted  by  Parliament  {2nd  Report  charter.     .■Vt   later  periods  it   frequently 

of  the  Deputy  Keeper.    Append,  ii,  p.  135).  procured    total    exemption,    e.g.   in    31 

The    indecipherable    condition    of    the  Hen.  VI;   4  and  8  Ed.  IV;   3,  5,  7,  and  12 

MS.  at  this  point  is  peculiarly  unfortunate  Hen.  VII;    3,  5,  7,  26,  32,  and  37  Hen. 

because,  bo  far  as  it  can  be  read,  it  sug-  VIII.    Qu.    \Miethcr  in  the  collection  of 


LOWESTOFT  V.  YARMOUTH  68 

fee  farm  ten  ■"  pounds  and  at  every  fifteenth  raised  within  the  reahn  "... 
many  other  profits. 

Answer  to  the  eleventh  article  which  l)egins:  "Also  certain  persons 
of  Yarmouth  sue  the  Lowestoft  tenants  of  our  lord  the  king  in  divers 
court[s]  ""....  The  charter  is  not  subject  to  repeal  by  reason  of  this 
article,  but  if  any  private  person  have  tres[passed]  "  against  the  said  article 
he  may  be  brought  to  answer  and  punished  for  his  trespass  if  he  be  found  .... 

May  it  please  our  lord  the  king  and  the  noble  lords  of  parliament  to  know 
and  take  heed  to  ...  of  the  great  dcarncss  of  herring  that  has  now  been 
in  this  year  is  because  the  fair  of  Scarborough  •'^  and  of  Whitby  "  failed 
as  is  well  known  to  the  people  of  those  parts  .  .  .  the  coasts  between 
.  .  .  Yaniiouth  they  have  taken  no  herring  this  year  ...  for  there  were 
no  herring  to  account  of  .  .  .  not  at  Yarmouth  and  there  "...  not  hung 
the  fourth  part  of  herring  .  .  .  hung  there  ^*  .  .  .  and  moreover  a  thou- 
sand last "  of  herring  in  the  recent  fishery  was  sold  .  .  .  this  j^ear  among 
nine  mariners,  so  that  because  of  good  .  .  .  the  said  dearness  .  .  .  stopped 
by  reason  of  the  said  charter  of  Yarmouth. 

[Endorsed:]  Parliament  held  at  Westminster  the  .  .  .  Saint  Hilary 
the  year  of  our  lord  the  king  ^  .  .  .  . 

D  Replication  of  Lowestoft 

Herring 

Replication  made  on  behalf  of  the  commonalty  of  Suffolk  to  the  an- 
swer .... 

The  first  answer  that  they  have  given  is  not  an  answer  to  justify  the 
maintenance  of  their  charter  contrary  to  the  statute,  for  it  is  agreed  that 

the  subsidy  voted  in  1377,  it  was,  by  way  are  passed  through  their  heads  or  gills  .  .  . 

of  p.irtial  exemption,  rated  for  two  fif-  and  they  are  then  hung  up  in  tiers  to  the 

teenths  only  ?  top  of  the  building,  which  is  usually  forty 

"  See  n.  24,  supra.       "  Conjectural.  or  fifty  feet  high  ...  the  first  tier  being 

*'  On  the  fourteenth-century    borough  about  seven  feet  from  the  ground.    Fires 

seal    "  Scardeburg."     The   fair   of   Scar-  from  oak  billet  are  then  kindled  under 

borough  was  granted  by  Henry  111  in  1253  them  and  are  continued  day  and  night, 

and  was  from  15  August  to  29  September,  with  slight  intermissions  to  allow  the  fat 

J.  B.  Baker,  Hist,  of  Scarborough  (1882),  and  oil  to  drop,  until  the  fish  are  suf- 

p.  315.  ficiently  cured,  which,  if  they  be  intended 

««  The  fair  of  Whitby  was  held  on  the  for  the  foreign  market,  is  at  the  end  of 

25th  August,  the  Feast  of  the  Translation  fourteen  days,  but  if  for  home  consiimp- 

of  St.  Hilda.                "  Conjectural.  tion,  three  or  four  days  will  suffice,  whilst 

"  "  .\rrived  at  the  fish-office  .  .  .  the  for  immediate  eating  twenty-four  hours 

fish,  after  being  sufficiently  salted,  remain  will  be  enough."    Palmer,  p.  309. 

on  a  floor  for  twenty-four  hours,   if  in-  "  "  The  Hundred  of  Herring  shall  be 

tended  to  be  slightly  cured,  or  for  ten  accounted  by  six  Score,  and  the  Last  by 

days  if  intended  for  the  foreign  market;  ten  Thousand."     Ordinance  of  Herrings, 

they  are  then  washed  in  large  vats  filled  1357.     iS(a(-s.  of  Realm  i,  354. 

with  fresh  water;    spits  about  four  feet  '"  See  Introduction,  p.  xciv,  supra, 

long  and  of  the  thickness  of  a  man's  thumb  "  Struck  through. 


69  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

vendre  et  achatre  haranges  et  autre  marchandises  a  graunt  Jernemuthe 
duraunt  le  feire  uncore  par  mesine  la  chartre  ils  sont  .  .  .  poient  vendre 
nachatre  en  la  Rode  de  Kirkle  nen  Lowystoft  ne  par  aillours  deins  sept 
lieux  entour  le  [diet  ?]  Jernemuthe  et  issint  en  celle  degre  expres[sement] 
encontre  le  dit  estatut  qe  voet  etc.  et  toute  le  remenant  compris  en  lour 
responce  nest  mj'e  .  .  . 

Le  seeonde  respounee  nest  pas  respounce  pour  assouder  le  meschief  de 
la  [chartre]  car  couient  qe  gentz  ne  sont  pas  artez  de  .  .  .  er  a  Jernemuthe 
...  ils  sont  defende  .  .  .  [ve]ndre  et  achatre  deinz  sept  lieux  entour 
Jernemuthe.  Et  par  tant  si  nief  ou  autre  vessel  arrive  al  Rode  de  Kirkele 
cjuele  est  deins  sept  lieux  il  faut  daler  a  Jernemuthe  ou  outrement  ils  ne 
poient  estre  venduz.  Et  partant  les  vitailles  serront  piz  quele  serroit  trop 
graunt  damage  et  meschief  a  toute  le  commune  et  quele  ne  serroit  mye 
suffert  par  estatut  ne  par  chartre  pour  nulle  singuler  profit. 

Le  tirce  respounce  ils  ne  ount  pas  plejTiement  respondu  car  ils  nount  pas 
allegge  qe  ceux  qi  feuront  par[ties]  al  dit  acord  feuront  mesnez  en  responce 
par  processe  de  lej^  et  par  tant  la  chartre  grantez  encontre  lacord  le  quele 
est  de  record  et  encontre  la  ley  come  desuis  est  dit  par  force  denquerres  ou 
de  office  *-  as  queux  no  les  parties  nauoient  lour  respounce  il  semble  qil  est 
repelable. 

Quant  a  la  quart  respounce  lour  primere  chartre  fuit  repelle  soUempne- 
ment  par  bone  dehberacion  de  touz  les  seignours  et  communes  en  pleyn 
parlement  '^  come  desus  est  dit,  et  le  nouelle  chartre  ne  fuit  mye  grante 
par  si  grant  auys  ne  deliberacion  ^*  quele  est  repellable  e  de  droit  doit  estre 
repelez  si  auant  come  lautre  fuit  par  la  reson  desuis  monstre. 

Quant  a  le  quint  article  lour  respounce  nest  pas  respounce  ne  reson  come 
il  semble  qe  ce  qest  pris  en  la  meer  et  arriuez  sur  la  terre  scrroy  restreint 
destre  venduz  par  ascunes  singulers  persones  encontre  commune  profit,  eins 
quant  il  est  arriue  sur  les  costes  il  serroit  commune  a  touz  pour  le  lour  do- 
nant  a  ceux  qi  ount  pris;  et  a  ce  qest  allegge  qe  il  serroit  apcrt  forstallerie, 
nest  pas  issint,  eins  serroit  commune  profit,  et  si  ascune  tiele  forstallerie 
fuisse  il  serroit  chastize  et  puny  par  le  conunune  ley  de  la  terre  pour  son 
smguler  fait  et  nemye  par  tant  toute  le  commune  profit  destourbe,  mes  en 
tant  qils  sont  restreintz  de  vendre  et  achatre  lour  vitailles  aillours  qen 
Jernenmthe  ce  est  mescheifous  et  damageous  a  toute  le  puple  car  ils  de 
Jernemuthe  mettent  pris  et  chier  a  lour  volunte." 

Quant  a  le  sisme  article  ils  nount  pas  responduz  de  verite,  qar  la  ou  ils 
ount  allege  qe  les  pessoners  pount  vendre  lour  haranges  a  lour  [volunte]  lour 
chartre  est  a  contrarie  come  desus  est  dit  qe  voet  qils  ne  vendront  mj-e  deins 

"  "  Office  doth  signifle  an  Inquisition  "  It  would  appear  that  the  charter  was 

made  to  the  king's  use  of  any  thing  by  revoked  in  1376  by  order  in  council,  which 

Virtue    of    his    Office    who    enquireth."  was  "  with  the  a.ssont  of  the  prelates,  earls, 

(Cowel,  hiUrjtT.)    The  argument  appears  barons,  nobles,  and  other  great  men,"  and 

to  Ik;  that   there  had  been   an  arbitrary  there  is  no  such  statute  enrolled  among 

misuse  of  prerogative.  the  Statutes  of  the  Healm.     There  was, 


LOWESTOFT  V.   YARMOUTH  69 

such  within  are  free  to  sell  and  buy  herrings  and  other  merchandise  at  Great 
Yannouth  duruig  the  fair,  yet  by  the  same  charter  they  are  .  .  .  can  [not] 
sell  nor  buy  in  the  lioad  of  Kirklcj'  nor  Lowestoft,  nor  elsewhere  within 
seven  leagues  round  the  said  Yannouth  and  so  in  that  degree  expressly 
contrary  to  the  said  statute  which  wills,  etc.  and  all  the  rest  contained  in 
their  answer  is  not  .  .  . 

The  second  answer  is  not  an  answer  to  abate  the  mischief  of  the  [charter], 
for  it  is  agreed  that  people  arc  not  compelled  to  .  .  .  at  Yarmouth  .  .  . 
are  forbidden  ...  to  sell  and  buy  within  seven  leagues  round  Yannouth, 
and  thereby  if  a  ship  or  other  vessel  arrive  at  the  Road  of  Kirkley  which 
is  within  seven  leagues  it  must  go  to  Yannouth,  or  otherwise  they  cannot 
be  sold,  and  thereby  the  victuals  will  be  worse,  which  would  be  too  great 
damage  and  mischief  to  all  the  commonaltj'  and  which  should  never  be 
suffered  by  statute  nor  bj-  charter  for  any  private  profit. 

The  third  answer  they  have  not  fully  answered,  for  they  have  not  al- 
leged that  those  who  were  parties  to  the  said  agreement  were  brought  to 
answer  by  process  of  law  and  thereby  the  charter  [was]  granted  contrary 
to  the  agreement,  the  which  is  of  record  and  contrarj'  to  the  law  as  is  above 
said  bj'  force  of  inquiries  or  of  office  "  to  which  .  .  .  the  parties  did  not 
have  their  answer  it  seems  that  it  should  be  revoked. 

As  to  the  fourth  answer,  their  first  charter  was  revoked  in  solemn  form 
bj^  good  deliberation  of  all  the  lords  and  commons  in  full  parhament  *'  as 
is  abovesaid,  and  the  new  charter  was  never  granted  by  so  great  advice  nor 
deliberation  '"*  [so]  that  it  is  revocable  [and]  by  right  ought  to  be  revoked  just 
as  before  the  other  was  for  the  reason  shewn  above. 

As  to  the  fifth  article  their  answer  is  not  an  answer  nor  a  reason,  as  it 
seems  that  that  which  is  taken  at  sea  and  landed  ashore  should  be  re- 
strained from  being  sold  bj'  any  private  persons  against  the  common  profit 
until  that  it  is  landed  upon  the  beach  [but]  it  should  be  common  to  all 
for  their  own  good,  the  takers  being  paid;  and  as  to  the  allegation  that 
it  would  be  open  forestalling,  it  is  not  so,  but  it  would  be  common 
profit,  and  if  there  were  any  such  forestalling,  it  would  be  chastised  and 
punished  by  the  common  law  of  the  land  for  that  particular  act  and  the 
common  profit  as  a  whole  not  thereby  interfered  with;  but  so  far  as  they 
are  restrained  from  selling  and  buj'ing  their  victuals  elsewhere  than  in 
Yarmouth,  this  is  mischievous  and  damnifies  the  whole  people,  for  they  of 
Yarmouth'  fi.x  the  price  and  make  it  clear  at  their  will." 

As  to  the  sixth  article,  they  have  not  replied  truthfully,  for  whereas 
they  have  alleged  that  the  fishermen  are  able  to  sell  their  herring  at  their 
[will]  .  .  .  their  charter  is  to  the  contrary,  as  is  above  said,  which  wills 

therefore,  substance  in  the  Yarmouth  con-  roj'al  commissioners,  was  contrary  to  the 

tention.    See  Gillingwater,  p.  128,  n.  feeling  of  the  house  of  commons:   see  In- 

"  There  is  truth  in  this,  if  it  be  the  case  troduction,  p.  xc,  supra, 
that  the  concession  of  the  charter  in  1378,  "  See  n.  33,  supra, 

though   agreeable   to   the   report   of   the 


70  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

les  septz  lieux  etc. ;  et  a  ce  qest  allegge  qe  les  niefs  p[urroient  venir]  deins  le 
port  de  Jcrnemuthe  en  quele  part  qe  la  vente  soit  ce  ne  poet  estre  fait  en 
grant  tempeste  come  ils  diont  mesmes,  ne  estre  amesnez  par  tiels  vesselx 
appelez  lithers  nient  le  plus  sanz  grant  et  outrageous  perile;  et  couient  qils 
purroient  estre  amesnez  par  tiels  vesseulx  ce  serroit  a  tresgrandes  .  .  . 
damages  et  trauailles  des  mariners  et  marchantz  et  autres  commxmes  et 
grant  destourbance  as  pessoners. 

Quant  a  le  septisme  article  les  manirers  [sic]  sont  a  lour  volonte  daler  a 
lour  volonte  ou  lour  haranges  etc.  .  .  .  le  plejTite  .  .  .  le  plejTite  est  qe 
les  marjTiers  sont  constreintz  qils  ne  poent  vendre  lour  haranges  as  autres 
qe  a  ceux  de  Jeme[muthe]  .  .  .  qils  soient  a  lour  voluntee  daler  etc.  en 
quele  lieu  quant  le  vent  lour  sert  etc.  ce  ne  prove  pas  qils  ne  sont  pas  con- 
streintz ...  ils  v[ign]ent  en  celle  partie  ils  sont  constreintz  come  purra 
estre  prove  pour  lour  responce  mesme  e  confession. 

Quant  a  le  ocptisme  article  ils  noimt  riens  allegge  pour  assoudre  le 
meschief  .  .  .  qar  la  ou  le  haranges  .  .  .  manche  en  la  dite  Rode  ceux  de 
Jernemuthe  les  preignont  maugre  lour  ...  a  lour  volunte  .... 

[Quant  a  le  neufisme  article]  .  .  .  Jernemuthe  .  .  .  parties  de  Suf- 
folk dioms  qils  nount  riens  allegge  pour  assoudre  le  meschief  pour  .  .  .  est 
.  .  .  plusours  .  .  .  de  Suffolk  come  pour  autres  conummes  de  la  [realjme, 
nous  prions  par  tant  qils  soient  .  .  .  autres  communes  .  .  .  cmitees  la  ou 
il[s]  dient  qe  pedlers  et  autres  \-itaillers  purroient  vener  a  Jernemuthe  a  la 
achat  t  re  .  .  .  heus  et  .  .  .  nuUe  desese  ...  la  dions  nous  qe  lour  vener 
illeoqes  est  a  grant  costage  et  deseese  ouesqe  ce  ils  achattent  .  .  .  qils  ne 
dussent  en  les  mejTis  ditz  mariners  a  grant  meschief  du  pais  parmye  toute 
envyron  et  ce  sont  les  da[mages]  .  .  .  par  quel  .  .  .  Roy  et  son  conseil. 

Quant  a  la  disme  article  la  ou  il  diont  qe  haranges  venduz  en  le  dite 
Rode  et  les  vesseLx  hors  des  queux  le  .  .  .  [haranges]  .  .  .  [est]  venduz 
sont  forfeta[bles]  il  semble  qe  ce  serroit  euidement  encontre  le  dit  estatut  qe 
voet  qe  chescun  Uege  du  roiabne  serroit  frank  de  v[endre] "...  assigner 
expressement  cause  de  forfaiture,  et  issint  tanke  lour  fait  ou  les  gentz  armez 
pour  .  .  .  manere  de  droiture,  et  par  tant  lour  chartre  grante  au  contrarie 
repellable.  Et  a  ce  qils  dient  outre  de  granter  une  feire  a  1  .  .  .  serroit 
damageous  et  grevous  a  Jernemuthe;  la  diont  ils  qils  demandent  nulle 
feire  eins  demandent  qils  .  .  .  vendre  et  achatre  .  .  .  ordene  qe  chescun 
liege  du  roiaume  purra  solonc  la  forme  et  le  .  .  .  auxint  nous  demandoms 
la  custume  de  la  Rode  qe  .  .  .  unqes  appurtenont  a  le  dite  villfe  de  Jerne- 
muthe deuant  lour  nouelle  chartre  qe  fuit  fait  Ian  del  aiel  qarant  et  sisme;  " 
pour  quele  custume  auoir  nous  donerons  .  .  .  vint  liures  par  an  '*  qe 
serroit  grant  encres  a  nostre  seignour  le  Roy  et  a  grant  amendement  a 
toute  le  roialme. 

"  9  Ed.  Ill,  c.  1  (1335).  dated  22  Aug.  46  Ed.  Ill  (1372).     See 

"  This   refers   to    the   annexation    of     Introduction,  p.  Ixxxix,  supra. 
Kirkley  Road  to  Yarmouth  by  the  charter         ••  See  n.  21,  Bupra. 


LO"WESTOFT  V.  YARMOUTH  70 

them  never  to  sell  within  the  seven  leagues,  etc.;  and  as  to  the  allegation 
that  the  ships  could  come  into  the  port  of  Yarmouth  in  whatever  quarter 
the  wind  may  be,  that  cannot  be  done  in  a  great  storm,  as  they  themselves 
say,  nor  can  they  be  brought  by  such  vessels  as  are  called  lighters  any 
the  more  without  great  and  excessive  peril,  and  it  is  agreed  that  [if]  they 
could  be  brought  by  such  vessels,  it  would  be  with  very  great  losses  and 
toils  on  the  part  of  the  mariners  and  merchants  and  other  commons  and 
great  disturbance  to  the  fishermen. 

As  to  the  seventh  article  the  mariners  are  free  to  go  at  their  will  with 
their  herrhigs,  etc.  .  .  the  complaint,  the  complaint  is  that  the  mariners 
are  constrained  so  that  thej'  cannot  sell  their  herrings  to  others  than  to 
those  of  Yarmouth  .  .  .  that  they  are  free  to  go,  etc.,  in  which  place  when 
the  wind  serves  them,  etc.  This  does  not  prove  that  they  are  not  con- 
strained .  .  .  [when]  they  come  into  that  part  they  are  constrained  as  will 
be  proved  by  their  own  answer  and  confession. 

As  to  the  eighth  article  they  have  alleged  nothing  to  abate  the  mischief 
...  for  whereas  the  herrings  .  .  .  channel  in  the  said  Road  those  of 
Yarmouth  take  them  despite  their  ...  at  their  will  .... 

As  to  the  ninth  article  .  .  .  Yarmouth  .  .  .  parts  of  Suffolk  we  say 
that  they  have  alleged  nothing  to  abate  the  mischief  for  .  .  .  is  .  .  .  many 
of  Suffolk  as  for  other  commons  of  the  realm,  we  pray  therefore  that  they 
may  be  .  .  .  other  commons  .  .  .  counties  whereas  they  saj'  that  pedlars 
and  other  victuallers  could  come  to  Yannouth  to  buy  it  .  .  .  places  and 
...  no  inconvenience  ...  we  say  that  for  them  to  come  there  is  at 
great  cost  and  inconvenience  except  that  they  buy  .  .  .  that  they  ought 
not  in  the  hands  of  the  said  mariners  to  the  great  harm  of  the  country  with 
the  whole  neighbourhood  and  these  are  the  losses  ...  by  which  .  .  .  king 
and  his  council. 

As  to  the  tenth  article  whereas  they  say  that  herrings  sold  in  the  said 
Road  and  the  vessels  out  of  which  the  .  .  .  [herrings]  .  .  .  [is]  sold  are 
forfeitable,  it  seems  that  this  would  be  evidently  contrary  to  the  said 
statute  which  wills  that  every  hege  of  the  realm  should  be  free  to  sell  ^^  .  .  . 
to  assign  expressly  a  cause  of  forfeiture,  and  thus  until  their  act  with  the 
armed  men  for  .  .  .  manner  of  right,  and  thereby  their  charter  granted 
on  contrarj'  temis  [is]  revocable.  And  as  to  their  statement  that  besides 
granting  a  fair  to  .  .  .  would  be  dangerous  and  burdensome  to  Yarmouth, 
they  say  that  they  ask  no  fair  but  ask  that  they  .  .  .  sell  and  buy  .  .  . 
ordains  that  every  hegeman  of  the  realm  shall  be  able  according  to  the 
form  and  the  .  .  .  also  we  ask  the  custom  of  the  Road  that  .  .  .  ever 
belonging  to  the  said  town  of  Yarmouth  before  their  new  charter  which 
was  made  in  the  forty-sixth  year  of  the  grandfather  [of  the  king];  ^'  to  have 
which  custom  we  will  give  .  .  .  twenty  pounds  yearly  **  which  would  be 
a  great  augmentation  to  our  lord  the  king  and  to  the  great  improvement 
of  the  whole  realm. 


71  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

Quant  a  le  unzinie  article  la  ou  il  dient  qe  une  singuler  persone  en  trespas 
fuit  mesne  en  respounce  .  .  .  et  encontre  commune  ley  de  terre  ...  en 
Suffolk  scrroit  mie  pour  gentz  de  Norffolk  en  le  dite  Countee  ^'  .  .  .  com- 
mune ley  repeUable,  par  quey  .  .  .  toutes  cestes  matieres  pour  lour  conis- 
sance  demesne  .  .  .  soit  repelle  come  ley  et  reson  .  .  .  et  ent  tresgrant 
oeure  de  charite  p[our]  les  communes  .... 


CONFESSIONS  OF  WILLIAM  CHAMBERLAIN  AND  JOHN  MARTIN* 

A 

1383  Ricardus,  Dei  gracia  Rex  Anglie  et  Francie  et  Dominus  Hibernie,  vice- 
comiti  Essex,  salutem.  Cum  per  inquisicionem  per  Johannem  Clerk  ^  de 
.  Ewell,  nuper  escaetorem  nostrum  in  comitatu  predicto,  de  mandato  nostro 
captam  et  in  cancellariam  nostram  retornatam  sit  compertum  quod  Henri- 
cus  de  la  Xewelonde  tenuit  die  quo  obiit  in  dominico  suo  ut  de  feodo  ma- 
nerium  de  Newelonde '  cum  pertinenciis  in  parochia  de  Writle  *  in  comitatu 
predicto,  et  quod  manerium  predictum  ten[etur]  de  nobis  in  capite  ut  de 
Honore  Bolonie  per  seruicium  unius  feodi  militis,  et  quod  predictus  Henri- 
cus  obiit  quinto  die  Mali  anno  regni  nostri  tercio,  quodque  Ricardus,  filius 
ejusdem  Henrici  est  heres  ejus  propinquior  et  infra  etatem;  jamque 
Willelmus  de  Clopton,^  miles,  nobis  supplicauerit  ut  cum  idem  Henricus 
diu  ante  mortem  suam  per  cartam  suam  predictum  Willelmum  et  Willel- 
mum  Chamberleyn  ^  de  Wambergge,'  capellanum,  de  manerio  predicto, 
per  nomen  manerii  de  Newelonde  juxta  Writle  cmn  pertinenciis,  habendum 
sibi  et  heredibus  suis  imperpetuum  foffasset,  qui  quidem  Willelmus  Cham- 
berleyn postea  per  scriptum  suum  totum  jus  et  clameum  que  habuit  seu 
habere  potuit  in  eodem  manerio  predicto  WiUehno  de  Clopton  remisit 
relaxauit  et  imperpetuum  quietum  clamauit,  ac  idem  Willelmus  de  Clopton 
pretextu  feoffamenti  et  quieteclamancie  predictorum  in  pacifica  possessions 
et  seisina  ejusdem  manerii  fuisset  quousque  tarn  colore  inquisicionis  pre- 
dicte  quam  litterarum  nostrarum  patencium  per  quas  manerium  predictum 
cum  pertinenciis  Willelmo  de  Wauton,*  militi,  sub  certa  forma  habcnilum 
nuper  commisimus  ammotus  fuisset  minus  juste  absque  hoc  quod  predictus 
Henricus  aliquem  statum  habuit  in  eodem  manerio  predicto  die  quo  obiit 

"  See  n.  24,  supra.  by  this  Henry  her  son,  who  held  it  by  the 

'  Parliamentary  and  Council   Proceed-  ser\'ice   of  one  knight's  fief.     Upon   his 

ings  (Chancery),  file  47,  no.  17;    3  mem-  death,  which  occurred  5  May,   1380,  he 

branes,  A  the  king's  WTit,  B  and  C  memo-  left  one  third  of  it  to  .Xgncs  his  wife,  and 

randa  of  proceedings  in  Chancery.  two  thirds  to  his  son  Richard.    Cat.  Inq., 

'  Escheator  of  Essex,  Hertford,  and  Sur-  p.  m.,  iii,  80;  and  V.  Morant,  Hist,  and 

rey,1380-85.  Co/.  Pa/. 3  Richard  II, 330,  <fec.  Antiq.  of  Essex  (1768),  ii,  74. 

'  A  manor  once  held  by  King  Harold,  *  or  Writtle,  a  town  and  parish  two  and 

in  Domesday  Book  by  Eustace  of  Bou-  one-half  miles  southwest  of  Chelmesford. 

logne,    and    located    in    the    hundred    of  '  Member  of  an  ancient  family  of  the 

Chelmesford.     In    1349   it   w.is   held   by  county  identified  with  the  manor  of  Newn- 

Margaret  Xewland  and  after  her  decease,  ham   in    Ashdon,    which   had   been   pur- 


CONFESSIONS  OF  WILLIAM  CHAMBERLAIN  AND  JOHN  MARTIN      71 

As  to  the  eleventh  article,  whereas  they  say  that  a  private  person  offend- 
ing was  brought  to  answer  .  .  .  and  contrarj'  to  the  common  law  of  the 
land  ...  in  Suffolk  would  not  be  by  the  people  of  Norfolk  in  the  said 
county  "...  common  law  revocable,  whereby  ...  all  these  matters 
await  their  cogniznance  ...  be  revoked  as  law  and  reason  .  .  .  and 
thereupon  a  very  great  work  of  charity  .  .  .  [for]  the  commonalties  .... 


CONFESSIONS  OF  WILLIAM  CHAMBERLAIN  AND  JOHN  MARTIN' 

A 
1383  Richard,  by  the  grace  of  God  king  of  England  and  France  and  lord  of 
Ireland,  to  the  sheriff  of  Essex  greeting.  Whereas  by  inquisition  taken 
according  to  our  order  by  John  Clerk  ^  of  Ewell,  lately  our  escheator  in  the 
aforesaid  county,  and  returned  into  our  chancery,  it  has  been  found  that 
Henrj'  of  Newland  on  the  day  that  he  died  held  in  his  demesne  as  of  fee  the 
manor  of  Newland '  with  its  appurtenances  in  the  parish  of  Writle  ^  in 
the  aforesaid  county,  and  that  the  aforesaid  manor  is  held  of  us  in  chief 
as  of  the  Honour  of  Boulogne  by  the  service  of  one  knight's  fee,  and  that 
the  aforesaid  Henry  died  on  the  fifth  of  May  in  the  third  year  of  our  reign, 
and  that  Richard  .son  of  the  said  Henrj'  is  his  nearest  heir  and  under  age; 
and  now  that  William  Clopton,*  knight,  has  made  supplication  to  us  that 
whereas  the  said  Henry  long  before  his  death  had  by  his  charter  enfeoffed 
the  aforesaid  William  and  William  Chamberlain  ^  of  Wanborough,^  chaplain, 
of  the  aforesaid  manor,  by  name  of  the  manor  of  Newland  near  Writle, 
together  with  appurtenances,  to  hold  to  him  and  his  heirs  forever,  and  this 
WiUiam  Chamberlain  afterwards  by  his  writing  demised,  released  and 
quit-claimed  forever  all  right  and  title  that  he  had  or  could  have  in  this 
aforementioned  manor  to  the  aforesaid  William  Clopton,  and  the  said 
William  Clopton  by  virtue  of  the  aforesaid  enfeoffment  and  quit-claim 
had  been  in  peaceful  possession  and  seizin  of  the  said  manor  until  by  colour 
of  the  aforesaid  inquisition  as  well  as  of  our  letters  patent  recently  assign- 
ing the  aforesaid  manor  with  appurtenances  to  William  Wauton,'  knight, 
to  hold  on  certain  terms,  he  had  been  removed  unjustly  and  without  the 
aforesaid  Henry  having  any  estate  in  the  same  said  manor  on  the  day  that 

chased  by  Sir  William  Clopton  in   1.346  nent  name  in  the  county,  was  a  commis- 

(Morant,  ii,  321,  52,5,  540).    The  present  sioner  de  ivalliis,  a  commissioner  of  array 

Sir  William  is  apparently  a  nephew  of  the  and  a  justice  of  the  peace  in  Essex.    {Cal. 

former.    He  was  also  lord  of  the  manor  of  Pat.  Rolls.)     In  1383  he  was  granted  an 

Dalham  in  Suffolk.    {Cal.  Close,  3  Richard  exemption   from   pubhc   service    (Ibid.   7 

II,  309).  Richard  II,  333),  but  he  still  served  on 

•  Mentioned  in  Cal.  Close,  2  Richard  commissions.  He  held  for  a  time  the  manor 
II,  241,  248.  of  West  Thurrock  and  died  in  possession 

'  A  small  parish  and  manor  between      of    three    manors,    namely,    Willinghall, 
Guildford  and  Farnham  in  Surrey.  Southwokyngdon,  and  Caureth.    (Morant, 

•  Wawton  or  Walton,  another  promi-      i,  91;   Cal.  Inq.,  p.  m.,  iii,  178). 


72  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

prout  per  predictam  inquisicionem  supponitiir,  velimus  litteras  nostras 
predictas  reuocari  et  manerium  predictum  cum  pertinenciis  in  manum 
nostram  resumi  et  illud  prefato  Willelmo  de  Clopton  una  cum  exitibus  inde 
a  tempore  mortis  predicti  Henrici  perceptis  restitui  et  liberari  jubere:  Nos 
volentes  in  hac  parte  fieri  quod  est  justum  precipimus  tibi  sicut  alias  pre- 
cepimus  quod  scire  facias  prefato  Willelmo  de  Wauton  quod  sit  coram  nobis 
in  cancellaria  nostra  a  die  Pasche  proximo  futuro  in  unum  mensem  ubi- 
cumque  tunc  fuerit  ad  ostendendmn  si  quid  pro  nobis  aut  se  ipso  habeat 
vel  dicere  sciat  quare  littere  nostre  predicte  reuocari  et  manerium  predic- 
timi  cum  pertinenciis  in  manum  nostram  resumi  et  eidem  Willelmo  de 
Clopton  una  cum  exitibus  predictis  restitui  et  liberari  non  debeant,  et  ad 
faciendum  ulterius  et  recipiendmn  quod  curia  nostra  considerauerit  in  hac 
parte.  Et  habeas  ibi  nomina  illorum  per  quos  ei  scire  feceris  et  hoc  breue. 
Teste  me  ipso  apud  AVestmonasterium  xx  die  Februarii  anno  regni  nostri 
sexto.^     Burton". 

[Endorsed:  — ]  Scire  feci  Willelmo  de  Wauton  militi  infranominato  quod 
sit  coram  domino  Rege  in  cancellaria  sua  ad  diem  infra  contentum  ubicum- 
que  tunc  fuerit  in  Anglia  facturus  et  ostensurus  quod  istud  breue  requirit 
per  Robertum  Rigge  '"  et  Ricardum  Johan. 

Galfridus  Dersham,  vicecomes. 

Willebnus  de  Clopton,  chiualer,  pronit  loco  suo  Edmundum  Herj-ng  " 
et  Jacobmn  de  BiUyngford/'  clericum,  conjunctim  et  diuisim  ad  lucrandum 
vel  perdendum  in  loquela  infrascripta. 

Wnielmus  de  Wauton  infrascriptus  ponit  loco  suo  Willelmimi  de  Hor- 
bury,"  clericmn,  ad  lucrandmn  vel  perdendum  in  loquela  infrascripta. 

B 

Fait  aremembrer  qe  le  xxiij  jour  Dapril  Ian  du  regne  le  Roi  Richard 
second  sisme  vient  en  la  chancellerie  nostre  dit  seignur  le  Roi  un  Sir  William 
Chaumberlej-n,  chapellein,  en  presence  del  Chanceller  "  le  Roi,  Monsieur 
leuesqe  de  Xicol,'^  les  serjeantz  du  Roi  et  plusours  autres  sibien  ISIeistres 
del  chancellerie  '^  come  autres  de  conseil  le  Roi  illeoqes  esteant,  et  la 
confessa  cement  Henri  Newelande  le  samady  proschein  apres  le  fest  del 
Ascension  "  Ian  tierce  nostre  dit  seignur  le  Roi  murust  seizez  en  son  demesne 
come  de  [fee]  de  le  manoir  de  Xewelande  oue  les  appurtenantz  en  le  counte 
de  Essex.  Et  qe  entour  un  quinzein  apres  la  mort  du  dit  Henri  un  Sire 
William  Clopton,  chiualer,  fist  par  grant  manace  et  duresce  le  dit  Sir 

'  Such  a  writ  of  scire  facias  was  a  regu-  Essex.  Cal.  Pat.,  IS  Richard  II,  506;    Rot. 

lar  remedy  in  cases  of  the  repeal  of  letters  Pari,  iii,  ITS. 

patent.     Blackstone,  book  iii,  §  261.  '*  Another  clerk  of  the  chancery  men- 

"  A  clerk   mentioned  in   Cal.   Pat.,  4  tioned  in  13S5  as  the  king's  servant  ap- 

Richard  II,  60S.  pwinted  to  the  custody  of  a  cottage  {Cal. 

"  A  clerk  in  the  chancery  named    in  Pat.,  573).    He  gained  the  presentation  of 

1394   as   attorney   for  another  party   in  several  churches  in  Norfolk  and  Suffolk, 


CONFESSIONS  OF  WILLIAM  CHAMBERLAIN  AND  JOHN  MARTIN     72 

he  died,  as  is  suggested  by  the  aforesaid  inquisition;  we  should  will  our 
aforesaid  letters  to  be  revoked  and  the  aforesaid  manor  with  appurte- 
nances to  be  resumed  into  our  hand  and  to  be  restored  and  delivered  to 
the  aforesaid  William  Clopton  together  with  the  issues  received  therefrom 
since  the  time  of  the  death  of  the  aforesaid  Henry;  We  wishing  justice  to 
be  done  in  the  matter  instruct  you  as  before  to  inform  the  aforesaid 
Wilham  Wauton  that  he  is  to  be  before  us  in  our  chancery,  wherever  it  shall 
then  be  one  month  from  next  Easter,  to  show  whether  he  has  anything  (to 
say)  for  us  or  for  himself  or  can  say  wherefore  our  aforesaid  letters  ought 
not  to  be  revoked  and  the  aforesaid  manor  with  appurtenances  resumed 
into  our  hand  and  restored  and  dehvered  to  the  said  Wilham  Clopton  to- 
gether with  the  aforesaid  issues,  and  to  do  and  receive  further  whatever 
our  court  shall  determine  in  the  matter.  And  do  you  have  there  the  names 
of  those  through  whom  you  shall  have  informed  him  and  (also)  this  writ. 
Witness  ourself  at  Westminster  the  20th  day  of  February  in  the  sixth  year 
of  our  reign.'    Burton. 

[Endorsed:  — ]  I  have  informed  the  above  named  William  Wauton, 
knight,  that  he  is  to  be  before  the  lord  the  king  in  his  chancery  wherever  it 
shall  be  in  England,  on  the  day  herein  named,  to  do  and  show  what  this 
writ  requires,  by  (the  agency  of)  Robert  Rigge '"  and  Richard  John. 

Geoffrey  Dersham,  sheriff. 

Wilham  Clopton,  knight,  names  in  his  place  Edmund  Heryng  "  and 
James  Billyngford,'^  clerk,  jointly  and  separately,  to  gain  or  lose  in  the 
aforesaid  plea. 

Wilham  Wauton  mentioned  above  puts  in  his  place  Wilham  Horbury,'' 
clerk,  to  gain  or  lose  in  the  aforesaid  plea. 

B 

Be  it  remembered  that  on  the  23d  day  of  April  in  the  sixth  year  of 
Richard  II,  there  came  into  the  chancery  of  our  said  lord  the  king  one 
William  Chamberlain,  chaplain,  in  the  presence  of  the  king's  chancellor,'* 
the  lord  bishop  of  Lincoln,'^  the  king's  Serjeants  and  many  others,  as  well 
masters  in  chancery  '^  as  others  of  the  king's  council,  there  present.  And 
there  he  confessed  how  on  the  Saturday  after  the  feast  of  the  Ascension  " 
in  the  third  year  of  our  said  lord  the  king,  Henry  Newland  died  seized  in 
his  demesne  of  the  manor  of  Newland  as  of  fee,  together  with  the  appurte- 
nances in  the  county  of  Essex.  And  (he  says)  that  about  a  fortnight  after 
the  death  of  the  said  Henry,  a  certain  Sir  Wilham  Clopton,  knight,  by 

and  a  prebend  in  Wells  Cathedral.     He  "  Also   a  clerk  in   the  chancery,   pre- 

became  chief  clerk  in  the  chancery  in  1396  sented  to  several  churches.    Cal.  Pat.  Rolls. 

{Cal.  Pat.  711),  and  afterwards  clerk  of  »  Michael  de  la  Pole,  1383-86. 

the  crown  in  chancery.     He  was  justice  of  "  John  of  Bockingham,  1362-98. 

the  peace  in  Norfolk  and  Hertfordshire  in  '*  The  complete  number  of  masters  in 

1406.    His  death  occurred  in  1409.  chancery  was  twelve. 

"  5  March,  1380. 


73  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

William  Chaumberlein  jurer  a  lui  en  tout  qe  lui  vorroit  charger,  et  lui  tenir 
conseil;  et  ce  fait  venerent  a  Loundres  et  la  par  couyn  entre  eux  forgerent 
un  faux  testament  en  Lumbardstrete  a  un  appeUe  Doncastre,  escryuej'n, 
par  serment  de  un  Johan  Pabner  et  Johan  Derbj',  valeitz  a  le  dit  Sire 
William  Clopton,  et  issint  le  dit  Doncastre  fit  le  testament,  fesant  mension 
en  ycel  qe  le  dit  Henri  auoit  venduz  a  ditz  Sir  WiUiam  Clopton  et  William 
ChaumberlejTi  le  dit  manoir  pur  un  certein  somme  dargent,  et  sur  ceo  a 
mesme  le  temps  les  ditz  William  et  William  en  Gressechirchestrete  en  lour 
hostel  firent  ent  un  chartre  en  fee  simple  acordant  a  le  testament,  portant 
date  auant  la  murance  du  dit  Henri,  e  fuist  escript  par  les  mains  du  dit 
Johan  Palmer  son  valeit,  et  la  note  du  dit  chartre  est  en  papire  '*  et  re- 
ma^me  unqore  en  diuerses  peces  [oue]  le  dit  Sir  WiUiam  Chaumberlej-n,  et 
qe  enselerent  le  dit  testament  oue  un  seal  assigne  oue  un  H.,  quele  seal  ils 
achaterent  a  Poulesgate,  et  rien  qe  le  dit  Wilham  Chaumberlein  sciet  ils 
enselerent  mesme  la  chartre  oue  meisme  le  seal,  et  ceo  fait  getterent  le  dit 
seal  en  un  fosse  pres  lour  hostiel:   et  en  cas  qe  la  dit  chartre  seit  seale  oue 
ascun  autre  seal  il  estoit  forge  apres  en  labsence  du  dit  Sir  William  Chaum- 
berlein, et  qe  le  dit  Sire  WiUiam  Clopton  ad  et  auoit  treis  jours  apres 
la  mort  du  dit  Henri  son  seal  de  ses  armes  tout  dis  en  sa  gard :   et  puis 
apres  cestez  chosez  acompliez  et  imaginez,  Us  ensemble  duissent  auoir  ale 
a  leschetour  lors  de  Essex  ouesqe  la  dit  faux  chartre  pur  auoir  fait  un  office 
acordant  a  la  dit  chartre,  en  deceit  et  desheretisoun  del  heire  du  dit  Henri, 
et  pur  excluder  le  Roi  de  son   droit,  le  dit  Sir  William  ChaumberlejTi 
feina  lui  malades  a  Brendewode,''  et  issint  ne  ala  auant  pur  rien  tie  ceo 
faire.    Et  puis  lui  remorda  en  sa  concience  de  la  dite  tresorrible  et  grante 
fauxtee  et  deceit,  vient  a  Sire  Sj-mond  Sudbury  ^  nadgairs  Archeuesqe  de 
Cantebirs,  adunqes  Chanceller,  et  lui  ent  confessa  les  choses  auantditz,  sur 
quele  lui  estoit  done  en  penance  de  aler  a  dit  Sire  WiUiam  de  Clopton  de 
cesser  de  la  fauxtee,  et  outre  daler  al  esglise  ou  le  dit  Henri  est  seuelez, 
et  la  confesser  la  dite  fauxtee; "    coment  il  venist  a  dit  esgUse  et  la  con- 
fessa en  un  solempne  jour  festyval  deuant  toutz  les  parochiens  les  fauxtees 
et  [deceitz]  auanditz.     Et  puis  apres  le  dit  Sire  WUUam  Clopton  voleit 
auoir  fait  le  dit  Sire  William  Chaumberleyn  relesser  tout  le  droit  qil  auoit 
en  le  dit  manoir,  quele  chose  le  dit  Sire  WUham  Clopton  ne  unqes  fist. 

C 

Fait  a  remembrer  qe  le  xiij  jour  de  Juyn  Ian  du  rcgne  le  Roi  qore  est 
sisme  en  la  chanceUerie  nostre  dit  seignur  le  Roi  en  presence  del  Chanceller, 

"  Paper  was  in  use  in  England  from  the  "  Chancellor,  1379-81. 

beginning  of  the  14th  century.      It  was  "  Public   offences   in   the  Church    are 

made  of  linen,  strong  and  tough,  and  first  visited  with  public  penance,  and  reconcilia- 

used  for  literary  purposes  and  domestic  tion  is  refu.sed  until  public  penance  is  un- 

registers.    J.  E.  T.  Rogers,  Hi.il.  of  Agri-  dergone.    Reichel,  Mamml  of  Canon  Law, 

aiUure  and  Prices,  i,  644.  i,  168.     The  same  thing  continues  in  John 

"  Parish    and    market    town    6    miles  Knox,  Book  of  DUcipline,  ed.  C.  Lennox 

northeast  of  Romford  in  Chelmesford.  (1905),  p.  397. 


CONFESSIONS  OF  WILLIAM  CHAMBERLAIN  AND  JOHN  MAliTIN      73 

great  threatening;  and  duress  forced  the  said  William  Chamberlain  to  swear 
to  him  in  regard  to  everything  that  he  wished  to  impose,  and  to  keep  his 
counsel.  Having  done  this  they  came  to  London  and  there  in  Lombard 
Street  at  (the  house  of)  one  named  Doncaster,  a  scribe,  on  oaths  of  one  John 
Palmer  and  John  Derby,  servants  of  the  said  Sir  William  Clopton,  by  covin 
between  them  they  forged  a  false  testament ;  and  thus  the  said  Doncaster 
drew  up  the  testament,  mentioning  in  it  that  the  said  Henry  had  sold  the 
said  manor  to  the  said  Sir  William  Clopton  and  William  Chamberlain  for 
a  certain  sum  of  money,  while  at  the  same  time  the  said  William  and 
William  at  their  house  in  Gracechurch  Street  made  out  a  charter  to  this 
effect  in  fee  simple  according  to  the  testament,  dating  it  before  the  death 
of  the  said  Henry;  this  was  written  by  the  hands  of  the  said  John  Palmer, 
Sir  William's  servant,  and  the  note  of  the  said  charter  is  on  paper  '* 
which  still  remains  in  several  pieces  [in  the  hands  of]  the  said  Sir  William 
Chamberlain;  and  (he  says)  that  they  sealed  the  said  testament  with  a 
seal  signed  with  an  //.,  which  thej'  had  bought  at  Paul's  Gate,  and  for  all 
the  said  William  Chamberlain  knows  they  sealed  the  same  charter  with 
the  same  seal,  and  having  done  this  they  threw  the  said  seal  into  a  ditch 
near  their  house;  and  in  case  the  said  charter  was  sealed  with  any  other 
seal  this  was  forged  afterwards  in  the  absence  of  the  said  Sir  William  Cham- 
berlain, and  (he  says)  that  the  said  Sir  William  Clopton  three  days  after 
the  death  of  the  said  Henry  had  and  still  has  Henry's  seal  with  his  arms 
in  his  keeping;  then  after  these  things  had  been  contrived  and  accom- 
plished, they  were  to  have  gone  with  the  said  false  charter  to  the  escheator 
of  that  time  in  Essex  in  order  to  secure  his  offices  in  accordance  with  the 
said  charter,  in  deceit  and  disherison  of  the  heir  of  the  said  Henry  and 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  king's  right.  And  the  said  William  Chamberlain 
feigned  sickness  at  Brentwood,"  and  took  no  further  part  in  the  pro- 
ceedings. And  then  he  felt  remorse  in  his  conscience  for  the  great  and 
very  horrible  fraud  and  deception  that  has  been  told,  and  going  to  Sir 
Simon  Sudbury  ^^  the  late  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  then  chancellor, 
he  confessed  the  things  already  described ;  whereupon  it  was  laid  upon  him 
as  penance  to  go  to  the  said  Sir  William  Clopton,  to  withdraw  from  the 
fraud,  and  further  to  go  to  the  church  where  the  said  Henrj'  is  buried, 
and  there  to  confess  the  said  fraud;  (and  he  tells)  how  he  went  to  the 
said  church  and  there  on  a  solemn  feast  day  before  all  the  parishioners 
he  confessed  the  aforesaid  frauds  and  deceptions.^'  Afterwards  the  said 
Sir  William  Clopton  would  have  had  the  said  Sir  WiUiam  Chamberlain 
release  all  the  right  that  he  had  in  the  said  manor,  but  this  the  said  Sir 
William  Clopton  never  did. 

C 

Be  it  remembered  that  on  the  13th  day  of  June  in  the  sixth  year  of  the 
reign  of  the  present  king,  there  came  into  the  chancery  of  our  said  lord  the 


74  CASES  BEFORE  THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

le  Chief  Justice  du  Roi,**  Monsieur  Richard  Abburbury,  Meistres  del  chan- 
cellerie  et  plusours  autres  du  conseil  du  Roi  \-ieat  un  Johan  Martyn  de  petit 
Thrillowe  ^  et  confessa,  jurez  sur  seintz  Ewangelistz  a  dire  la  veritee  par 
ses  seermentz,  coment  il  fist  un  chartre  de  feofifement  de  fee  simple  de  par 
Henri  Xewelande  par  estimacion  entour  un  quinzaine  deuant  sa  moriance 
a  Monsieur  William  Clopton  de  le  manoir  de  Newelande  en  le  countee  de 
Essex  a  auoir  a  lui  e  ses  heirs  a  touz  joiu^,  et  auxi  le  dit  Johan  Martyn  fist 
amesme  le  temps  un  lettre  dattorne  de  par  le  dit  Sire  William  en  le  noun  de 
Johan  Palmer  pur  receuier  seisin  en  le  noun  du  dit  Sire  Wilham  Clopton,  et 
le  dit  Sir  Wilham  Clopton  bailla  mesme  le  jour  en  le  court  une  chartre  et 
un  lettre  de  attorne  de  la  mater  auantdite,  disant  qe  le  dit  Johan  Martj-n 
les  fist  par  ses  ma^Tis,  et  le  dit  Johan  regardant  les  dites  chartre  et  lettre 
les  ad  outrement  refusez  et  deniez,  disant  qe  unqes  ne  les  vist  deuant  cest 
jour.^^ 


TAYLORS  V.  BREMBREi 

1386  Item  les  ditz  Suppliantz  soy  pleignont  vers  Xichol  Brembre "  de  ceo 
qil  ouesqe  les  autres  ses  acomphces  accrocha  sur  luy  roiale  poair  de  ceo  qe 
par  la  ou  une  chartre  par  le  progenitour  nostre  seignur  le  Roj-  feust  grante 
a  le  Mestier  des  Taillours  de  Londres  come  par  la  copie  de  mesme  la  chartre 
pleinement  fait  mencion  la  quele  copie  si  ensuit:  Edwardus  dei  gracia 
Rex  Anghe  et  Francie  et  Dominus  Hibernie  Onmibus  ad  quos  presentes 
htere  peruenerint  salutem.  Inspeximus '  hteras  patentes  quas  nos  nuper 
sub  sigillo  nostro  quo  tunc  utebamur  in  Anglia  fieri  fecimus  in  hec  verba: 
Edwardus  dei  gracia  Rex  Anghe  Dominus  Hibernie  et  Dux  Aquitanie  Om- 
nibus ad  quos  presentes  htere  peruenerint  salutem.  Supphcarunt  nobis 
Cissores  et  Armurarii  linearmn  *  amiaturarum  Ciuitatis  nostre  London'  per 
peticionem  suam  coram  nobis  et  consiho  nostro  *  in  present!  parliamento  ' 
nostro  exhibitam  quod  cum  ipsi  et  antecessores  sui  de  eisdem  mesteris  in 
Ciuitate  predicta  semper  hactenus  a  tempore  quo  non  extat  memoria 
Gildam  suam  infra  eandem  Ciuitatem  semel  in  anno  habere  et  tenere  et 
in  eadem  Gilda  mesteras  suas  regulare  et  statmu  seruientum  suorum  de 
eisdem  mesteris  ordinare  et  defectus  eorundem  corrigere  et  emendare  pro 
commimi  utiUtate  tarn  hominum  ejusdem  Ciuitatis  quam  ad  eandem  con- 

«  Sir  Robert  Tressilian,  1387-88.  '  Parliamentary     Proceedings     (Chan- 

"  or  Thurlow,  Great  &  Little,  a  manor  cer>-),  file  10,  no.  3. 

in  Suffolk  3J  miles  north  of  Haverhill.  '  Mayor,  1377-78,  1383-84;   knighted, 

"  ^^'hether  any  punishment  was  meted  1381;    a  memljer  of  the  king's  council, 

out  to  Clopton,  the  principal  offender,  does  1386;  hanged  at  Tyburn,  1388.    A  strong 

not  appear.    At  all  events  he  was  soon  in  partisan  of  Richard  II.     See  Did.  Nat. 

good  legal  standing,  for  in  1385  he  was  one  Biog.  and  Introd.,  p.  xcvii,  supra, 

of  the  commissioners  to  hear  an  appeal  '  "  An     Inspeximus  "     or     "  Letters- 

from  the  court  of  chivalry.    Cat.  Pat.  Rolls,  Patent  "  so-called  ...  is  the  same  with 

696.  Exemplification  which  begins  thus:  "  Rex 


TAYLORS   V.  BREMBRE  74 

king  one  John  Martin  of  Little  Thrillowe,"  in  the  presence  of  the  chancellor, 
the  king's  chief  justice,"  Master  Richard  Abberbury,  the  masters  in  chan- 
cerj-,  and  many  others  of  the  king's  council;  and  having  been  sworn  by  his 
oath  upon  the  holy  gospels  to  tell  the  truth,  he  confessed  how  he  drew  up 
a  charter  of  enfeoffment  in  fee  simple  on  the  part  of  Henry  Newland  about 
a  fortnight,  he  thought,  before  his  death  (granting)  to  Master  William 
Clopton  the  manor  of  Newland  in  the  county  of  Essex,  for  himself  and  his 
heirs  to  hold  forever;  moreover,  the  said  John  Martin  at  the  same  time 
drew  up  in  behalf  of  the  said  Sir  William  a  letter  of  attorney  naming  John 
Pahner  (with  power)  to  take  seisin  in  the  name  of  the  said  Sir  William 
Clopton;  and  on  the  same  day  the  said  Sir  William  Clopton  brought  to 
court  a  charter  and  a  letter  of  attornej^  in  regard  to  the  aforesaid  matter, 
declaring  that  the  said  John  Martin  drew  them  with  his  own  hands;  but 
the  said  John  having  looked  at  the  said  charter  and  letter  repudiated  and 
denied  them  entirely,  declaring  that  he  had  never  seen  them  before.^* 


TAYLORS  V.  BREMBRE' 

1386  Also  the  said  suppliants  complain  against  Nicholas  Brembre  ^  that 
with  the  others  his  accomplices  he  took  upon  himself  royal  authority  in 
that  whereas  a  charter  was  granted  by  the  progenitor  of  our  lord  the  king 
to  the  mister}'  of  the  Taylors  of  London  as  by  the  copy  of  the  same  the 
charter  fully  makes  mention,  the  which  copy  follows:  "  Edward  by  the 
grace  of  God  king  of  England  and  France  and  lord  of  Ireland  to  all  to  whom 
the  present  letters  shall  come  Greeting.  We  have  inspected  ^  the  letters 
patent  which  we  lately  under  the  seal  then  used  by  us  in  England  caused 
to  be  made  in  these  words:  '  Edward  by  the  grace  of  God  king  of  England, 
lord  of  Ireland,  and  duke  of  Aquitaine  to  all  to  whom  the  present  letters 
shall  come  Greeting.  We  have  been  supplicated  by  the  Taylors  and  Linen 
Armourers  *  of  our  city  of  London  through  a  petition  exliibited  before  us 
and  our  council  *  in  our  present  parliament  ^  that  whereas  they  and  their 
predecessors  belongmg  to  the  same  misteries  in  the  City  aforesaid  have 
always  hitherto  since  time  immemorial  been  accustomed  once  in  the  year 
to  have  and  to  hold  their  gild  within  the  same  City  and  in  the  same  gild  to 
make  rules  for  their  misteries  and  to  order  the  condition  of  their  servants 
belonging  to  the  same  misteries  and  to  correct  and  amend  the  shortcomings 
of  the  same  for  the  common  weal  as  well  of  the  men  of  the  sapie  City  as  of 

omnibus,  etc.,  Inspeximus,"  etc.     Cowel,  1300  granted  the  gild  license  to  adopt  the 

Interpreter,  s.  v.  name  of  "  Taylors  and  Linen  Armourers 

*  Linen-armourers.      "  All    which    did  of  the  fraternity  of  St.  John  the  Baptist " 

not  fall  within  the  Smith's  province  came  (ib.  p.  1).     This  license  is  not  preserved 

to  the  Linen  Armourers."      (J.   Hewitt,  in  the  Patent  Rolls. 

Antient  Armour;   C.  M.  Clode,  Mevioriah  '  For  this  form  see  Lombards  w.  Mercers, 

of  the  Merchant  Taylor's  Company  [1875],  p.  44,  n. 
p.  2,  n.  3.)  According  to  Stow,  Edward  I  in  '  See  Introd.,  p.  xcviii,  supra. 


10  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

fluencium  consueuissent  et  jam  per  aliquod  tempus  omnes  illi  qui  de  mes- 
teris  illis  se  esse  dixerint   tam   extranei  quam  alii  shopas  in   Ciuitate 
predicta  pro  eorura  voluntate  ceperint  et  mesteris  illis  usi  fuerint  per  hujus- 
modi  extraneos  irregulatos  et  de  eorum  defectibus  non  correctos  dampna 
quamplurima  pluribus  tam  de  Ciuitate  ilia  quam  aliis  pluries  euenerint  in 
scandaluni  proborum  hominum  de  eisdem  mesteris  \'elimus  Gildam  pre- 
dictam  approbare  et  earn  hominibus  de  mesteris  predictis  in  dicta  Ciuitate 
cormnorantibus  confimiare  sibi  et  successoribus  suis  imperpetuum  obti- 
nendam  Xos  eorimi  supplicacioni  in  hac.  parte  annuentes  predictam  Gildam 
tenore  presencium  acceptamus  et  approbamus.     Volentes  et  concedentes 
pro  nobis  et  heredibus  nostris  quod  homines  de  mesteris  predictis  in  Ciui- 
tate predicta  et  successores  sui  Gildam  suam  semel  in  anno  prout  anti- 
quit  us  fieri  consueuit  habere  et  tenere  '  et  in  ea  mesteras  suas  ordinare  et 
regulare  et  defectus  seruientum  suorum  predictormn  per  vismn  Majoris 
Ciuitatis  predicte  ^  qui  pro  tempore  fuerit  vel  alicujus  quem  loco  suo  ad 
hoc  deputauerit  et  per  probiores  et  magis  sufficientes  homines  de  mesteris 
illis  corrigere  et  emendare  possint  prout  ad  majorem  utilitatem  Com- 
mimitatis  populi  nostri  viderint  faciendum.     Et  quod  nuUus  infra  liber- 
tatem  Ciuitatis  predicte  mensam  vel  shopam  de  mesteris  illis  teneat  nisi 
sit  de  libertate  Ciuitatis  Ulius  Xec  aliquis  ad  libertatem  illam  pro  mesteris 
illis  admittatur  nisi  per  probos  et  legales  homines  de  eisdem  mesteris  testi- 
ficetur  quod  bonus  fidelis  et  ydoneus  sit  pro  eisdem.    In  cujus  rei  testi- 
monium has  hteras  nostras  fieri  fecimus  patentes.     Teste  me  ipso  apud 
Westmonasterium  x  die  Marcii  anno  regni  nostro  primo.'     Xos  autem 
tenorem  Uterarum  nostrarum  predictarmn  sub  sigillo  quo  nunc  utimur  in 
AngUa'"  du.ximus  exemplificandum."    In  cujus  rei  testimonium  has  literas 
nostras   fieri   fecimus   patentes.      Teste  me  ipso  apud   Langle '-   vj  die 
Februarii  anno  regni  nostri  Anglie  quinto  decimo ''  regni  vero  nostri 
Francie  secundo."   La  quele  chartre  le  dit  Sieur  Xichol  Brembre  prist  hors 
del  possession  du  dit  mestier  encontre  la  corone  nostre  seignur  le  Roy  et 

'  The  license  of  Edward  I  (n.  4,  supra)  use  from  8  Februarj-,   1340  to  20  June, 

authorized  them  to  choose  their  Masters  1340,  and  the  second  from  21  June,  1340 

and    Workers    on    the    midsummer    day  to  1374.     This  statement  does  not  seem 

yearly.    Clode,  p.  2.  altogether  consistent   with  the  evidence. 

'  Presumably  this  was  Brembre's  war-  The  announcement  of  the  change  of  style, 

rant    for    interference.      An    example    is  with  notice  to  the  sheriffs  to  publish  and 

given  by  Clode  of  the  date  of  1371,  in  exhibit   impressions   of   the  new  seal,   is 

which  the  mayor  and  aldermen  sanction  dated  21  February,  14  Ed.  Ill,  and  is  to 

regulative  ordinances  submitted  to  them  be  found  printed  in  Rot.  Part,  ii,  450,  cf. 

by  the  company.    lb.  p.  513.  Close  Rolls,  14  Ed.  Ill,  pt.  1,  p.  457.    "  A 

•  1327.      Clode    WTongly    dates    this  newly  made  great  seal  which  he  (the  king) 

charter  132t).    lb.  pp.  2,  189.  had  brought  to  England  from  across  the 

"•  According   to   the  Catalogue  of  Pho-  sea  "  was  delivere<l  by  the  king  himself 

lographs  of  Seals  in  the  British  Museum  on  1  March,  1340,  to  Sir  John  de  Sancto 

(1872,  pt.  vii,  959),  there  were  two  great  Paulo,  keei)er  of  the  Chancery  Rolls,  who 

seals,  quartering  the  arms  of  France,  be-  surrendered  "  another  great  seal  deputed 

twecn  1340  and  1374,  the  first  being  in  in  his  custody  during  the  king's  absence 


TAYLORS  V.  BREMBRE  75 

those  resorting  together  to  the  same  and  now  during  some  time  all  those, 
both  strangers  and  others,  who  have  chiiincd  to  belong  to  those  misteries 
have  at  their  will  taken  shops  in  the  C.'ity  aforesaid  and  have  practised 
those  misteries  by  the  hands  of  such  unruled  strangers  and  uncorrected 
from  their  defaults  very  many  losses  have  oft  times  resulted  to  many  of  the 
City  as  to  others  to  the  scandal  of  the  honest  men  of  the  same  misteries, 
our  will  is  to  approve  the  gild  aforesaid  and  to  confirm  it  to  the  men  of  the 
misteries  aforesaid  abiding  in  the  said  City  to  be  held  to  themselves  and 
their  successors  in  perpetuity,  we  assenting  to  their  suppUcation  in  this 
behalf  do  by  tenour  of  these  presents  receive  and  approve  the  aforesaid  gild. 
Willing  and  granting  for  us  and  our  heirs  that  the  men  belonging  to  the 
misteries  aforesaid  in  the  City  aforesaid  and  their  successors  may  be  able 
to  have  and  hold  their  gild  once  in  the  year  '  as  hath  of  old  been  accustomed 
to  be  done  and  in  it  to  order  and  make  rules  for  their  misteries  and  to  correct 
and  amend  the  defaults  of  their  servants  aforesaid  by  the  view  of  the 
Mayor  of  the  City  aforesaid  '  for  the  time  being  or  of  any  whom  he  shall 
have  deputed  in  his  place  and  by  the  more  worthy  and  sufficient  men  be- 
longing to  those  misteries  according  as  they  may  see  should  be  done  to  the 
greater  weal  of  the  commonalty  of  our  people,  and  that  none  hold  a  counter 
or  shop  touching  those  misteries  within  the  hberty  of  the  City  aforesaid 
unless  he  be  free  of  that  City,  and  that  no  one  be  admitted  to  that  freedom 
on  behalf  of  those  misteries  unless  he  be  testified  to  by  worthy  and  loyal 
men  of  the  same  misteries  as  being  good,  faithful  and  fit  for  the  same.  In 
witness  whereof  we  have  caused  these  our  letters  patent  to  be  made. 
Witness  ourself  at  Westminster  on  the  tenth  day  of  March  in  the  first  year 
of  our  reign.' '  Now  we  have  thought  fit  that  the  tenour  of  our  letters  afore- 
said should  be  exempUfied  under  the  seal  now  used  by  us  in  England.'"  In 
testimony  thereof  we  have  caused  these  our  letters  patent  "  to  be  made. 
W' itness  ourself  at  Langley  '^  on  the  sixth  day  of  Februarj^  in  the  fifteenth 
year  of  our  reign  over  England  '^  but  the  second  of  our  reign  over  France."  " 
The  which  charter  the  said  Sir  Nicholas  Brembre  took  out  of  the  possession 
of  the  said  mistery  against  the  crown  of  our  lord  the  king  and  yet  detains 

in  parts  beyond  the  sea,"  which  seal  the  '-  King'sLangley,  Herts,  six  miles  south- 
king  "  received,  and  immediately  de-  west  of  St.  Albans,  where  was  a  palace 
livered  to  William  de  Kildesby,  to  be  kept  said  to  have  been  built  by  Henry  IH,  and 
in  the  Wardrobe"  (C/osc7?oWs,  14  Ed.  HI,  frequently  inhabited  by  the  three  Ed- 
pt.  1,  20  February,  1340,  p.  4.54).  Ed-  wards  and  Richard  II.  Edward  Ill's 
ward  soon  after  went  abroad  afjain,  and  fifth  sou,  Pklward  of  Langley,  was  so 
during  his  absence  from  England  this  last  called  from  this  his  birthplace.  J.  E. 
seal  was  again  used  (ib.  pt.  2,  p.  053);  Cussans,  Hint,  of  Hertfordshire,  Hundred 
but  on  his  return  at  the  end  of  November,  of  Dacorum  (1879)  p.  197. 
he  "ordained  that  the  seal  brought  from  "  1341.  A  proclamation  dated  5  Febru- 
parts  beyond  the  sea  should  be  used  hence-  ary  shows  that  Edward  HI  was  at  Langley 
forth  in  England  "  (ibid.).  This  is,  doubt-  at  this  time.  Foedera  (Hague  ed.),  II, 
less,  the  seal  to  which,  on  6  February  fol-  iv,  90. 

lowing,  he  refers.  "  The  regnal  years  in  the  case  of  France 

"  See  n.  2,  supra.  were  dated  from  25  January,  1340. 


76  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

unqore  detient  la  dite  chartre.'^  Par  quoy  pleise  a  nostre  tresexcellent  et 
tresredoute  seignur  le  Roy  et  as  tresnobles  seignurs  de  cest  present  parle- 
ment  de  cest  horrible  trespas  fait  encontre  la  eorone  nostre  seignur  le  Roy 
et  la  ley  de  terre  faire  due  remedie  en  oeure  de  charite. 


PETITION  OF  THE  HANSARDS' 

1389  -'^l  tresnoble  et  tresgracious  seigneur  le  Chanceller  -  Dengleterre  sup- 
plient  humblement  Conrad  Fjnk,^  Gerard  Clambek,  Warner  He3'nsoun, 
merchantz  DalemajTi  et  del  Hanse,  qe  come  le  xxviij"  jour  de  Janeuer 
darrein  passe  les  ditz  suppliantz  oue  une  nief  appelle  seinte  ]\Iarie  knyghte, 
lune  moite  de  Campe  et  lautre  moite  de  Lubik,  charge  oue  xl  lastes  de 
barelles  de  haranges,  cestassauer  a  dit  Conrad  ix  lastes,  au  dit  Gerard 
V  lastes,  a  Witheman  Claiston  viij  lastes,  a  dit  Warner  Heynson  vi 
lastes,  et  a  Hubert  Boman  vi  lastes,  et  a  Peter  Scale  de  Doredroght  en 
Holand  et  a  Alard  Henrison,*  burgeis  de  Canape,  iij  lastes,  a  queux  Peter 
et  Alard  le  dit  Warner  estoit  merchant,  furent  en  alant  sur  la  meer  vers 
Hampton  a  vendre  illoeqes  le  ditz  harang,  et  siglerent  uisque  al  Isle  Wyght; 
cy  viendrent  pres  eux  deux  niefs  de  Plymuthe,  lun  de  Cok  Wille  et  lautre 
de  Richard  Rawe  de  Phnimiuthe,  lez  queux  Englois  a  tord  pristrent  lour 
dite  nief  et  haranges  et  amesnerent  tanqe  al  hauen  de  Wej-mod,  a  graund 
damage  et  perde  dez  ditz  supliantz,  a  cause  qe  le  last  fuist  vendu  illoeqes 
pour  v  li.  qe  valeit  bien  a  Hampton  vi  h.  dont  estoit  en  lez  majms  Johan 
Golde  de  Wej-mod  largent  de  xxi  lastes,  le  quel  argent  le  dit  Johan  Golde 
deUuera  et  est  en  lez  mejTis  sire  Johan  Raueneser,^  clerc,  par  vertue  de 
deux  briefs  de  vous,  tresnoble  seignour,  pourchacez,  dount  les  ditz  mer- 
chantz ount  receuz  vij  lastes  forsqe  i  barelle,  et  le  mestre  ad  receu  deuers 
luy  pour  soun  freghte  iiij  lastes.  Et  issint  lez  ditz  merchantz  dalemayne 
et  del  hanse  deussent  auoir  xxiij  lastes  i  barelle,  et  a  Peter  Scale  iij  lastes, 
et  a  Alard  Henrison  de  Campe  iij  lastes,  et  auxi  ils  ount  despenduz  entour 
la  poursuyte  depuis  tanqe  en  cea  xxiij  marcz,  et  qe  les  gentz  de  Cok  Wille 
et  Richard  Rawe  ount  largent  de  viij  lastes  i  barelle  et  dimi,  sur  quoi  a  lour 
presente  le  conceill  nostre  seignour  le  Roi  granta  as  ditz  suppliantz  qe  sils 
purroient  porter  et  moustrer  lettres  de  lour  seignour  le  due  de  Gildres  et 
dautres  villes  quils  serroient  deliueres  et  auoir  plein  restitucion  et  deliuer- 
ance  de  lour  biens;  et  sur  ceo  ils  ount  portez  iij  lettres  del  Due  de  Gildres, 

"  Apparently    afterwards    restored    to  this  time,  is  a  step  leading  to  the  p-owth 

and  now  in  possession  of  the  company.  of  the  court  of  chancery  as  a  tribunal  dis- 

Clode,  p.  189.  tinct  from  the  council.     The  court  was 

'  Ancient   Petiiions,    nos.    14,957    and  still  the  council,  however,  as  the  endorse- 

15,067,  which  are  duplicates.  ment  of  the  present  petition  shows.    On 

»  William  of  Wykeham,  chancellor  from  the  growth  of  the  chancery  at  this  time, 

4  May,  1389  to  1391.    The  address  to  the  see  King's  Council,  ch.  x. 

chancellor,   sometimes  to  the  chancellor  '  or  Konrad  Vynk  of  Liibeck.    In  1382 

and  council,  as  seen  in  many  petitions  of  he  and  another  Hanseatic  merchant  made 


PETITION    OF   THE    HANSARDS  7G 

the  said  charter.'*  Wherefore  may  it  please  our  very  excellent  and  very 
dread  lord  the  king  and  the  very  noble  lords  of  this  present  parliament  to 
make  due  remedy  for  this  horrible  trespass  done  against  the  crown  of  our 
lord  the  king  and  the  law  of  the  land  as  a  work  of  charity. 

PETITION  OF  THE  HANSARDS' 

1389  To  the  very  noble  and  very  gracious  lord,  the  chancellor  ^  of  England, 
Conrad  Fynk,'  Gerard  Clambock  and  Warner  HejTison,  merchants  of 
Almain  and  of  the  Hansa,  make  humble  supplication  that  whereas  on  the 
28th  day  of  January  last  the  said  suppliants  with  a  ship  called  The  Saint 
Mary  Kjiight,  one-half  of  Kampen  and  the  other  half  of  Liibeck,  laden  with 
40  lasts  of  barrels  of  herrings,  that  is  9  lasts  belonging  to  the  said  Conrati, 
6  lasts  to  the  said  Gerard,  8  lasts  to  Withman  Claiston,  6  lasts  to  the  said 
Warner  Heynson,  6  lasts  to  Hubert  Bowman,  and  to  Peter  Scale  of  Dor- 
trecht  in  Holland  and  Alard  Henrison  ^  burgess  of  Kampen,  3  lasts 
each,  the  said  Warner  being  merchant  for  Peter  and  Alard,  were  sailing 
upon  the  sea  towards  Southampton  there  to  sell  the  said  herring,  and  they 
sailed  as  far  as  the  Isle  of  Wight.  Here  there  came  upon  them  two  ships  of 
Plymouth,  the  one  of  Cok  Wille  and  the  other  of  Richard  Raweof  Plymouth, 
and  these  Enghshmen  wrongfully  took  their  said  ship  and  herring  bringing 
them  to  the  port  of  Wejnnouth,  to  the  great  damage  and  loss  of  the  said 
supphants,  because  the  last  was  sold  there  for  £5  which  was  well  worth  £6 
at  Southhampton,  of  which  there  were  in  the  hands  of  John  Gold  of  Wey- 
mouth the  money  for  21  lasts;  this  money  the  said  John  Gold  delivered 
and  it  is  in  the  hands  of  Sir  John  Ravenser,*  clerk,  by  virtue  of  two  writs 
purchased  of  you,  very  noble  lord,  whereby  the  said  merchants  have  re- 
ceived 7  lasts  except  1  barrel,  while  the  master  has  received  for  his  freight 
4  lasts.  And  so  the  said  merchants  of  Almain  and  of  the  Hansa  ought 
to  have  23  lasts  1  barrel,  and  Peter  Scale  3  lasts,  and  Alard  Henrison  of 
Kampen  3  lasts;  and  also  they  have  expended  upon  the  suit  from  then 
until  now  23  marks,  and  since  the  men  of  Cok  Wille  and  Richard  Rawe 
have  the  money  for  8  lasts  1^  barrels,  wherefore  in  their  presence  the 
council  of  our  lord  the  king  granted  to  the  said  suppliants  that  if  they 
could  bring  and  show  letters  of  their  lord  the  duke  of  Gueldres  and  of  other 
towns  they  should  be  delivered  and  have  full  restitution  and  deliverance 
of  their  goods.    Hereupon  they  have  brought  three  letters  of  the  duke  of 

complaint   that   as   they   were   going   to  'A  clerk  in  the  king's  employ  since 

Flanders  their  ship  was  seized  and  they  1370,  mentioned  as  clerk  of  the  hanaper 

were  arrested  and  detained  by  ministers  in    1379.     In    1385   he   was   granted   20 

of  the  Earl  of  Kent.    The  king  ordered  the  marks  a  year  until  he  should  be  provided 

release  of  the  merchants  provided  they  with  a  suitable  benefice  (Ca(.  Pa/.  9  Richard 

gave  security.  Cfose  7?oHs,  5  Richard  II,  m.  11,33).    He  was  parson  of  Algarkirk,  preb- 

19,  cited  in  Kunz,  Hanseaklen  aus  England,  endary   of   Caistor   in    Lincoln,    and    of 

no.  215.     .  Holme  in  York. 
*  or  Henrichson. 


77  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

iij  lettres  de  la  \-ille  de  Lubj'k,  ij  lettres  de  la  ville  de  Dirleburgh,  ij  lettres 
de  la  vUle  de  Doredroght  et  ij  lettres  de  la  ville  de  Campe,  eertifiant  et 
moustrant  coment  lez  ditz  biens  sont  droitement  as  ditz  merchantz, 
nepourquant  ils  nount  nulle  deliuerance.  Que  plese  a  vostre  tresnoble 
et  tresgraeiouse  seignourie  considerer  ceste  matiere  et  ent  ordeigner  de 
remedie  par  manere  qils  event  restitucion  de  lour  argent  aderere  pour 
Dieu  et  en  oeure  de  charite,  entendantz  qe  les  ditz  suppliantz  nauoient 
nulle  chartre  de  meer  a  cause  qils  ne  sauoient  sils  encontreyont  FlenjTiges 
ou  Francois  sur  le  meer,  et  auxi  qe  les  ditz  suppliantz  riens  ne  volont  pour- 
suer  pour  les  vi  lastes  de  Hubert  Boman  a  cause  de  soun  forfait  qil  fist  a 
WejTnod  siisditz,  et  qe  le  dit  Conrad  est  attoume  et  procurour  pour  Gerard 
Clambek  et  Withaman  Clayston  pour  poursuer  sibien  pour  eux  come  pour 
luy  mesmes  et  touz  jours  les  ditz  suppliantz  proueront  bien  par  les  euiden- 
cez  susditz  qe  lez  merchandises  auantditz  sont  as  ditz  merchantz. 

[Endorsed:  — ]  Memorandum  quod  in  Octabis  sancte  Trinitatis  ^  anno 
presenti  pro  eo  quod  infrascriptus  Conradus  tanquam  attomatus  et  pro- 
curator infrascriptonmi  Gerardi  Clanbek  et  Withemanni  Claiston  protulit 
et  exhibuit  diuersas  Utteras  testimoniales  coram  consiho  domini  nostri  Regis 
testificantes  bona  et  catalla  infrascripta  mercatoribus  infrascriptis  de  jure 
pertinere  debere,  per  quod  per  idem  consiliimi  consideratum  fuit  et  de- 
cretum  ^  quod  Centum  et  quinque  hbre  in  manibus  infrascripti  Joharmis 
de  Rauenser  existentes  eisdem  Mercatoribus  integre  dehberarentur.  Super 
quo  idem  Johannes  de  mandato  venerabilis  patris  Willelnii  de  Wykeham 
Episcopi  Winton',  Cancellarii  Anglie,  easdem  Centum  et  quinque  Ubras 
predicto  Conrado  deliberauit.* 

ESTURMY  u.  COUETEXAY  ■ 

1392        L^  Records  et  proces  touchantz  le  Conte  de  Deuenishire.^ 

Fait  aremembrer  qe  sur  un  plej-nt  fait  au  Roy  par  William  Esturmy ' 
Chiualer  sur  Edward  Courtenaj-  Counte  de  Deuenshire,  Xostre  seigneur 

•  14-19  June,  1389.    The  year  is  men-  shown  "  (op.  cit.  731).  There  were  no  de- 

tioned  in  a  later  document  relating  to  the  crees  by  the  chancellor  as  yet,  but  a  bill 

settlement  of  claims.    Kunz,  no.  329.  presented  to  the  chancellor  was  answered 

'  Judgment  was  a  common  law  form,  by  a  decree  of  the  council, 
decree  an  equitable  form.     The  present  '  On  1  May,  1390  Conrad  Fynk  and 

phrase  shows  the  failure  at  the  time  to  Warner  Heynson  m.ake  a  recognizance  in 

discriminate  tetween  the  two.    It  affords  the  chancery  of  the  payment  of  this  sum 

an  answer  also  to  a  question  propounded  (Close  Rolls,  13  Richard  II,  pt.  ii,  m.  8d.). 

by  Mr.  Pike  in  an  article  entitled:  Com-  Yet  the  claim  was  a  matter  of  negotiation 

num  Law  and  Conscience  (Essays  in  Anglo-  for  many  years  after.    See  Introd.,  p.  c. 
American  Legal  Historj- (1809),  ii,  722-76).  '  Parliamentary  and  Council   Proceed- 

"  That  decrees  were  made  by  the  king  ings  (Chancery),  file  12,  no.  7. 
with  the  adWce  of  his  Council  in  the  reign  •  Edward    Courtenay,    grandson    and 

of  Richard  II  is  a  fact  which  admits  no  heir  of  Hugh,  late  carl  of  Devonshire.    A 

dispute,    but    that    they    were    made    in  full  account  of  his  life  will  he  found  in 

Chancery,  or  in  consequence  of  a  Bill  pre-  Dugdale,  Baronage,  i,  640,  and  in   Diet. 

sented  to  the  Chancellor,  has  yet  to  be  \at.  Biog.     He  was  admiral  of  the  fleet 


ESTURMY    V.  COURTENAY  77 

Gucldrcs,  three  letters  of  the  town  of  Liibeck,  two  letters  of  the  town  of 
Delbriick,  two  letters  of  the  town  of  Dortrecht,  and  two  letters  of  the 
town  of  Kanipcn  certifying  and  demonstrating  how  the  said  goods  belong 
to  the  said  merchants;  nevertheless  they  have  no  deliverance.  So  may  it 
please  your  very  noble  and  very  gracious  lordship  to  consider  this  matter 
and  ordain  for  it  renictly,  so  that  they  may  have  restitution  of  their  money 
in  arrear,  for  love  of  God  and  in  the  way  of  charity,  considering  that  the 
said  suppliants  have  no  charter-party  because  they  did  not  know  whether 
thej'  would  encounter  Flemings  or  Frenchmen  upon  the  sea,  and  also  that 
the  said  suppliants  wish  to  make  no  suit  for  the  6  lasts  of  Hubert  Bowman 
on  account  of  the  forfeiture  that  he  suffered  at  Weymouth  aforesaid,  and 
that  the  said  Conrad  is  attornej^  and  proctor  for  Gerard  Clambeck  and 
Withman  Claiston  to  sue  for  them  as  well  as  for  himself.  And  the  said 
suppliants  will  always  give  good  proof  by  the  evidences  aforesaid  that  the 
aforesaid  merchandise  belongs  to  the  said  merchants. 

[Endorsed:  — ]  Be  it  remembered  that  in  the  Octaves  of  Holy  Trinity  * 
during  the  present  year,  because  the  aforesaid  Conrad  as  attorney  and 
proctor  of  the  aforesaid  Gerard  Clambeck  and  Withman  Claiston  offered 
and  exhibited  divers  letters  testimonial  before  the  council  of  the  lord  the 
king  testifying  that  the  goods  and  chattels  aforesaid  should  of  right  belong 
to  the  aforesaid  merchants,  wherefore  it  was  adjudged  and  decreed '  by 
the  said  council  that  the  £105  remaining  in  the  hands  of  the  aforesaid  John 
Ravenser  should  be  entirely  delivered  to  the  said  merchants.  Whereupon 
the  said  John  at  the  mandate  of  the  venerable  father  William  of  Wykeham, 
bishop  of  Winchester,  chancellor  of  England,  delivered  the  £105  to  the 
aforesaid  Conrad.* 

ESTURMY  V.  COURTENAY ' 

1392        The  records  and  process  touching  the  earl  of  Devonshire.^ 

Be  it  remembered  that  upon  a  complaint  made  to  the  king  by  WiUiam 
Esturmy '  knight  against  Edward  Courtenay  earl  of  Devonshire,  our  lord 

to  the  west  of  the  Thames  in  1383,  Earl  So.    Wiltshire,   i,    117).     Their   principal 

Marshal  in  1384,  justice  of  the  peace  in  seat  was  Wolf  Hall  near  Maiden  Bradley. 

Devon  and  Cornwall  in  1392,  and  served  They  held  also  Cousfield  Esturmy,  named 

on  various  commissions  of  oyer  and  ter-  after  them,  and  other  estates  in  Wiltshire, 

miner  {Cal.  Pat.  Rolls).     Though  it  was  Somerset,  and  Hampshire.     William  wsis 

alleged  in  a  case  heard  in   1402  that  he  the  heir  of  his  uncle  Henry,  who  died  in 

was  a   maiutainer  of  his  relative   Philip  1381  {Cal.  Inq.,  p.  m.  iii,  30).     His  mar- 

Courtenay,  a  conspicuous  deforciant  and  riage  with  Joan,  former  wife  of  Sir  John 

disturber  of  the  peace  {Rol.  Pari,  iii,  489),  Beaumont,    brought   him    the   manor   of 

the  career  of  the  earl  was  in  the  main  Santon  in  Devon   (Pole,  Hist,  of  Devon- 

more  honourable  than  his  conduct  in  the  shire,  pp.  395,  408),  which  was  the  cause 

present  case  might  lead  one  to  sujipose.  of  his  interest  in  the  present  case.     He  is 

•  or  Sturmy,  representative  of  a  family  first  noticed  in  the  royal  service  in  1386, 

of  knights  and  sheriffs  known  from  the  and  was  thenceforth  appointed  to  numbcr- 

Nonnan  Conquest  (R.  C.  Hoare,  Hi.^t.  of  less   commissions.     He   was   one   of   the 


78  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

le  Roy  enuoia  son  brief  a  dit  Counte  qil  serroit  deuant  luy  et  son  counsail  * 
ore  le  jeodi  proschein  apres  le  feste  de  la  Chaundelheure  °  Ian  le  dit  Roy 
qninzisme  amenaunt  ouesqe  luj-  un  Robert  Yoo  *  soxin  famulier;  a  quel 
jour  '  le  dit  William  declara  '  deuaunt  le  dit  counsail  qe  par  la  ou  un  William 
Wyke^  del  Countee  de  Deuenshire  tenaimt  a  Monsieur  de  Hunt jiigdon '" 
et  a  luy  nadgairs  pursuy  diuers  briefs  nostre  seignour  le  Roy  vers  le  dit 
Robert  Yoo  et  ascun  des  ditz  briefs  fuist  pris  a  force  des  majTies  le  dit 
William  Wyke  par  le  dit  Robert  Yoo  et  Johan  Langeford  soim  seruaunt  et 
jettu  en  un  podail  et  puis  autres  briefs  furent  directs  a  viscount  de  Deuen- 
shire et  a  luy  Kuerez  a  la  seute  le  dit  WiUiam  Wj-ke  de  prendre  les  corps 
lez  ditz  Robert  et  Johan.  Sm-  quoy  le  feste  del  anunciacion  nostre  dame" 
darrein  passe  le  dit  Johan  tapissaunt  en  un  fosse  agaita  le  dit  William 
Wyke  venaunt  a  lesglise  '^  en  pelrjTiage  new  des  pees,  horriblement  luy 
murdra  par  comaundement  et  excitacioun  le  dit  Robert  Yoo.  Et  puis 
apres  le  dit  William  Esturmy  "  scit  en  companye  oue  Johan  Wadham  " 
Justice  de  la  pees  en  celle  Countee  quaunt  les  ditz  Robert  et  Johan  Lange- 
ford furent  enditez  de  la  murdre  sxiisdite  par  lez  meultz  vanez  Chiualers 
et  Esquiers  de  celle  Countee,  et  puis  le  dit  William  Esturmj-  vient  a  measoun 
le  dit  Coimte  entendaimt  dauoir  heu  boun  desport,  et  la  le  dit  Counte  luy 
dist  en  presence  de  Johan  Greneuj^lle  '^  Chiualer  qil  et  le  faux  Justice  soun 
allie  et  autres  auoient  endite  le  dit  Robert  Yoo  soun  seruaunt  fauxement 
dount  il  jura  sur  la  crois  de  sa  chapelle  qe  le  dit  William  Esturmy  acom- 
peroit  de  soun  corps  luy  appellaimt  souent  faux  treitour  a  lu)',  et  dist  qil 
naueroit  pluis  longement  respit  mes  celle  jour  de  sa  proraesse  auantdite, 

commissioners  appointed  10  Jan.  1392  to  fore  his  death  in  1426  (Cal.  Inq..  p.  m., 

arrest  Robert   Yeo  and  John   Langeford  iv,  107).     He  left  no  son  but  his  second 

in  connection  with  the  case  now  being  daughter  Maud  married  Roger  Seymour 

tried  (Cal.  Pal.  Rolls,  82).    On  6  Oct.  in  great    grandfather    of    Jane,    queen    of 

the  same  year  he  was  made  a  retainer  of  Henrj'  VIII. 

the  king's  household  for  life  with  a  grant  *  The   decision   to   summon    the   earl 

of  40  marks  a  year  (ibid.  1S6).    He  was  was  reached  at  a  meeting  of  the  council 

one  of  the  arbitrators  named  in  1393  to  held  on  23   Jan.   1392,  according   to  an 

deal    with    a    complaint    against    Philip  entry  in  the  clerk's  journal  (The  King's 

Ck)urtenay   (Rot.  Pari,  iii,   302),   and  in  Council,  490).     The  latter  record  differs 

1394  was  in  another  important  judicial  from    the    present    one    in    stating    that 

commission   touching  a   case  of   bribery  letters,  rather  than  a  writ  of  summons, 

and  intimidation  of  a  jury  (Cal.  Pat.  420).  were  to  be  issued.     Letters  in  fact  were 

He  was  a  member  of  parUament  for  Wilts  more  likely  to  be  issued  in  dealing  with  per- 

in  1391  and  In  1404,  when  he  served  as  sons  of  rank.    Moreover  the  journal  says 

speaker  (A.   I.   Dasent,  Speakers  of   the  that  a  writ  of  subpoena  was  to  be  issued 

House,  p.  69);  a  member  for  Wilts  in  1399,  to  the  sheriff  of  Devon  requiring  him  to 

1414,  and  1422;  also  a  justice  of  the  peace  come  on  the  same  day. 
in    Wilts    and    sheriff    in    1418.      Under  '  8  Feb.  1392. 

Henry  IV'  he  was  one  of  the  commissioners  '  Yoo,  or  Vo,  a  family  whose  name  has 
appointed  in  1401  to  treat  with  the  duke  been  supposed  to  come  from  their  dwelUng 
of  Gueldres  and  in  1405  to  treat  with  the  place  Yeo  in  Alwington  in  the  north- 
grand  master  of  the  Teutonic  Order  and  western  part  of  the  county.  This  Robert, 
with  the  Hanse  (Feed,  viii,  189,  395,  396).  son  of  John,  of  Heanton  Sachville,  held 
He  acquired  many  properties,  having  Cotlegh  in  the  hundred  of  Coliton  (Prince, 
nearly  doubled  his  original  inheritance  be-  Worthies  of  Devon,  p.  591 ;     Pole,  Hist,  of 


ESTURMY   V.  COURTENAY  78 

the  king  sent  his  writ  to  the  said  earl  that  he  should  be  before  the  king  and 
his  council  *  on  Thursday  following  the  feast  of  Candlemas,''  the  fifteenth 
year  of  the  said  king,  bringing  with  him  one  Robert  Yeo*  his  retainer.  On 
this  day '  the  said  William  declared  '  before  the  said  council  that  whereas 
one  Wilhani  Wyke  '  of  the  county  of  Devonshire,  tenant  of  the  lord  of 
Huntingdon'"  and  of  himself,  recently  pursued  divers  writs  of  our  lord  the 
king  against  the  said  Robert  Yeo,  and  one  of  the  said  writs  was  taken  by 
force  from  the  hands  of  the  said  William  Wyke  by  the  said  Robert  Yeo  and 
John  Langford  his  servant  and  thrown  into  a  well,  and  then  other  writs 
were  directed  to  the  sheriff  of  Devonshire  and  delivered  to  him  at  the  suit 
of  the  said  William  Wyke  to  seize  the  bodies  of  the  said  Robert  and  John. 
Whereupon  on  Lady  Day  "  last  passed  the  said  John  lying  concealed  in  a 
ditch  attacked  the  said  William  Wyke  as  he  was  coming  to  the  church  '^ 
bare-foot  on  a  pilgrimage,  and  horribly  murdered  him  bj^  command  and  at 
the  instigation  of  the  said  Robert  Yeo.  And  afterwards  the  said  William 
Esturmy  "  sat  with  John  Wadham  "  justice  of  the  peace  in  this  county, 
when  the  said  Robert  and  John  Langford  were  indicted  of  the  aforesaid 
murder  by  the  most  worthy  knights  and  esquires  of  this  county,  and  then 
the  said  WilUam  Esturmy  went  to  the  house  of  the  said  earl  expecting  to 
find  good  favour,  and  the  said  earl  said  to  him  in  the  presence  of  John 
Grenville  ■'  knight  that  he  and  his  ally  the  false  justice  and  others  had  in- 
dicted his  servant  the  said  Robert  Yeo  falsely,  whereof  he  swore  on  the 
cross  of  his  chapel  that  the  said  WiUiam  Esturmy  should  answer  with  his 
body,  caUing  him  repeatedly  false  traitor,  and  said  that  he  should  have 
respite  no  longer  than  this  day  of  his  aforesaid  promise,  and  moreover  the 

Devonshire,  p.  146).    A  writ  for  the  arrest  '^  Estiirmy   was  not   a  justice  of   the 

of  Yeo  and  his  servant  John  Langford  had  peace  in  this  year,  but  it  was  customary 

been   issued   on    10   January    {Cal.    Pat.  for  the  justices  to  invite  others  to  sit  with 

Rolls,  282),  but  under  the  protection  of  them, 

the  earl  they  could  not  thus  be  reached.  '*  Son  of  .Sir  John,   of  a  well   known 

'  The  meeting  of  the  council  for  this  family  which   derived  its   name  from   a 

day  is  on  record.    See  Introd.,  p.  ci.  place  Wadham  in  the  parish  of  Knowston 

'  Apparently  the  case  was  opened  with-  (Prince,  Worthies,  p.  587).  He  was  a  jus- 
out  petition  or  bill.  No  petition  has  been  tice  of  common  pleas  in  1388,  ascrjeantat 
found  in  And.  Pet.  law  in  1390,  a  trier  of  petitions  in  parlia- 

'  or  Wike,  mentioned  as  holding  the  ment  and  for  many  years  justice  of  the 

manor  of  Cocktrie,  of  the  parish  of  Peters  peace  in  Devon  and  other  counties.     He 

Marland.    Pole,  p.  243.  was  also  member  of  parliament  for  the 

'"  This  was  John  Holland,  half  brother  shire  in  1400. 
of  Richard  II,  a  fact  that  may  account  for  "  The  Grcnvilles  were  a  family  located 
the  vigour  with  which  the  case  against  the  at  Stow  in  the  northeastern  part  of  Corn- 
earl  of  Devon  was  pressed.  The  earl  of  wall  and  at  Biddiford  in  the  northwest  of 
Huntingdon  held  a  number  of  estates  in  Devon.  The  mother  of  this  Sir  John  was 
Devon.    Dugdale,  ii,  78.  a  daughter  of  the  late  Hugh  Courtenay, 

"  25  March,  1391.  and  he  was  a  cousin  of  the  earl  of  Devon. 

"  This  occurred  in  the  parish  of  Peters  He  was  sheriff  at  the  time  of  the  present 

Marland  at  Combe,  south  of  Torrington.  case,  1391-92,  and  represented  the  shire  in 

Cat.  Pat.  20  Ric.  II,  145.  parUament  in  1388,  1394,  1397,  and  1402 

(Names  of  Members  Relumed). 


79  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

et  outre  il  luy  enuoia  mesme  le  jour  par  le  dit  Johan  Grenem-lle  qil  luj' 
tendroit  loial  couenaunt  de  ceo  qil  luy  auoit  prorays  et  puis  il  dist  mesmes 
les  paroles  a  Walter  Comu  '*  et  au  darrein  il  enuoia  William  Gouj-s  en 
message  a  dit  William  Esturmy  le  quelle  luy  dist  en  presence  de  Monsieur 
James  Chuddelegh,"  le  dit  Johan  Greneuylle  et  William  Hankeford  '^  de 
part  le  dit  Coimte  qil  fuist  faux  et  qil  acomperoit  de  son  corps  et  qil  sauoit 
touz  ses  chemj-ns  ou  il  dust  aler  ou  passer  et  qil  neschaperoit  mj-e  ses 
majTis  qar  il  fuist  seur  de  luy.  Et  auxint  le  dit  William  Esturmy  dist  qe 
le  dit  Counte  auoit  manace  et  reproue  William  Beamnond  "  Johan  Coples- 
toun  -"  William  Burlestoim  -^  Thomas  Cridie  -"  Johan  Wot  ton  a  cause  qils 
feurent  en  lenqueste  denditer  les  ditz  felons.  Dount  sibien  ils  come  les 
ditz  James  Johan  Grenem-lle  et  Walter  Comu  furent  faitz  veuir  al  dit 
jeody  deuaunt  le  dit  coimsaill  destre  examinez  sur  les  matiers  auantditz. 
Sur  ceo  le  dit  Johan  Greneuylle  seremente  et  examine  deuaunt  le  dit 
counsaill  dist  qil  oiea  mesmes  les  paroles  qe  le  Counte  disoit  a  dit  WiUiam 
Esturmy  et  qil  fist  le  message  de  le  dit  Counte  en  manere  come  le  dit 
Wilham  Estunnj'  auoit  declare;  et  Walter  Comu  seremente  et  examine 
deuaunt  le  dit  counsail  dist  qe  le  dit  Counte  parla  a  luy  mesmes  les  paroles 
come  le  dit  Wilham  Esturmy  auoit  dit,  mes  il  luy  deschargea  de  faire  tiele 
message  a  lui,  et  les  ditz  James  Johan  Greneuylle  et  Wilham  Hankeford 
serementez  et  examinez  deuant  le  dit  coimsaill  disoient  qils  oierent  le 
message  estre  fait  a  dit  WiUiam  Esturmy  par  le  dit  Wilham  Gouys  de  part 
le  dit  Counte  en  manere  come  le  dit  Wilham  Esturmy  auoit  alegge.  Et  le 
dit  Johan  Wadham  examine  deuant  le  dit  counsail  dit  qe  quant  il  fuist 
seaunt  en  une  sessioun  de  la  pees  a  Excestre  le  mardi  proschein  apres  le 
feste  de  seint  Hiller  ^  darrein  passe  de  faire  proces  sur  les  ditz  felons  le  dit 
Johan  Greneuylle  luy  dist  en  presence  le  dit  Wilham  Estunnj'  et  Wilham 
Hankeford  qe  le  dit  Coimte  lui  maimda  qil  dust  seere  en  ceste  sessioun 
plus  adres  sanz  encljTi  qil  ne  fist  a  proschein  sessioun  deuaunt;  et  le  dit 
WiUiam  Esturmj-  disoit  qe  le  dit  Johan  GreneuyUe  ne  dist  mye  soun  mes- 
sage pleinement,  qar  il  dist  qil  fuist  charge  a  dire  qe  le  dit  Johan  Wadham 
fuist  faux  Justice,  et  sur  ceo  le  dit  Johan  GreneuyUe  seremente  et  examine 
deuaunt  le  cht  counsaill  dist  qe  soun  message  fuist  en  manere  come  les  ditz 

"  of  Horwood,  mentioned  also  in  con-  "  or   Hankford,   the   head   of   a   local 

nection  with  Little  Modbury  (Pole,  De-  family  and  a  lawj'er  of  eminence.    He  was 

vonshirc,  pp.  312,  391).    He  was  sheriff  in  a  Serjeant  at  law  in  1390,  a  king's  Serjeant 

1393-94,  and  one  time  commissioner  of  in-  at  law  in  1391,  a  justice  of  common  pleas 

quisition  (Cal.  Pat.  15  Ric.  II,  522).  in  139S,  a  justice  of  the  peace  in  Devon 

"  Chudley  or  Chudlegh,  a  family  name  139S-1403,  a  Knight  of  the  Bath  in  1400, 

taken  from  Chidley  in  Exminster.  The  seat  and  chief  justice  of  the  king's  bench  in 

of  the  family  was  Ashton  (Prince,  p.  209;  1403   (Prince,   Worthies,  p.  361;    Haydn, 

Pole,  pp.  255,  260).    Sir  James  was  justice  Book  of  Dignities;  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls). 

of  the  peace  1389-19,  member  of  parlia-  "  Member  of  a  prominent   family  of 

ment  for  the  shire  six  times  between  1382  which    Sir   John    was    the    head.      This 

and  1394,  escheator  in  Devon  and  Corn-  William   held   the   manor   of   Littleham. 

wall  in   1392,  and  a  member  of  various  Cal.  Inq.,  p.  m.,  iii,  3'28. 

commissions  (Cal.  Pat.  Rolls).  "  Son  of  John  Copleston,  of  a  family  of 


ESTURMY   V.  COURTENAY  79 

earl  sent  (word)  to  him  the  same  day  by  the  said  John  Grenville  that  he 
should  keep  faith  of  what  he  had  promised,  and  then  he  said  the  same  words 
to  Walter  Cornu,"  and  at  last  he  sent  to  the  said  William  Esturmy  William 
Gouys  as  messenger,  who  told  him  in  the  presence  of  Sir  James  ("hudlegh,'' 
the  said  John  Grenville  and  William  Hankford  "  on  behalf  of  the  said  earl 
that  he  was  false  and  that  he  should  answer  with  his  body,  that  he  knew  all 
the  roads  l)y  which  he  must  come  and  go,  and  that  he  should  not  escape  the 
hands  of  the  carl  who  was  sure  of  him.  And  also  the  said  William  Esturmy 
says  that  the  said  earl  liad  threatened  and  reproached  William  Beaumont," 
John  C'oppleston,^  A\'illiam  Burleston,-'  Thomas  Credy,"  and  Jolin  Wotton 
because  they  had  taken  part  in  the  inquest  indicting  the  said  felons.  Where- 
fore these  men  as  well  as  the  said  James,  John  Grenville,  and  Walter  Cornu 
were  required  to  come  on  the  said  Thursday  before  the  said  council  to  be 
examined  upon  the  matters  aforesaid.  Whereupon  the  said  John  Grenville, 
having  been  sworn  and  examined  l)eforc  the  said  council  said  that  he  heard 
the  very  words  that  the  earl  spoke  to  the  said  William  Esturmy,  and  that 
he  took  the  message  of  the  said  earl  just  as  the  said  William  Estumiy  had 
declared.  And  Walter  Cornu  having  been  sworn  and  examined  before  the 
said  council  said  that  the  said  earl  spoke  to  him  the  same  words  as  the  said 
William  Esturmy  had  said,  but  the  earl  discharged  him  of  taking  such  a 
message;  and  the  said  James,  John  Grenville,  and  William  Hankford, 
having  been  sworn  and  examined  before  the  said  council,  said  that  they 
heard  the  message  given  to  the  said  Wilham  Estunny  by  the  said  William 
Gouys  on  behalf  of  the  said  earl  just  as  the  said  William  Esturmy  had 
alleged.  And  the  said  John  Wadham,  having  been  examined  before  the 
said  council,  says  that  while  he  was  sitting  in  a  session  of  the  peace  at 
Exeter  on  Tuesday  following  the  last  feast  of  St.  Hilar}-,-'  holding  process 
upon  the  said  felons,  the  said  John  Grenville  told  hmi  in  the  presence  of 
the  said  William  Esturmj^  and  William  Hankford  that  the  said  earl  sent 
word  to  him  that  he  should  sit  more  uprightly  without  partiality  in  this 
session  than  he  had  at  the  last  session.  And  the  said  William  Estumiy 
said  that  the  said  John  Grenville  did  not  give  his  message  fully,  for  he  said 
that  he  had  been  charged  to  say  that  the  said  John  Wadham  was  a  false 
justice;  and  as  to  this  the  said  John  Grenville,  having  been  sworn  and 
examined  before  the  said  council,  says  that  his  message  was  the  same  as 

squires  named  after  their  seat  in  Colebrook  2'  Mentioned  here  as  one  of  the  justices 

(Prince,  p.  171).  Anhereditary  rit^htof  the  of  the  peace  in  1392,  hut  there  is  no  such 

family  was  to  wear  a  collar  of  silver  esses  commission   to   him   in   the   Patent   Rolls 

and  a  pair  of  silver  spurs  (Polwhele,  Hist.  prior  to  1394.     He  was  also  in  that  year 

of  Devon,  i,  267).    This  John  was  in  1388  escheator  in  Devon.    Cat.  Pal.,  438,  &c. 
custodian  of  the  king's  stauncry  in  Devon  -'  King's  Serjeant  at  arms,  l.'5S9-94,  one 

and  steward  of  the  royal  manor  and  lord-  of  the  commission  appointed  10  January 

ships    there    (Cal.   Pat.    422).      He   was  to  arrest  Robert  Yoo.     Cal.  Pot.  Rolls, 

justice  of  the  peace  in  1392,  and  at  times  15  Ric.  II,  82. 
commissioner  of  oyer  and  terminer,  &c.  "  16  Jan.  1392. 


80  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

Johan  Wadham  et  William  Esturmy  auoient  declare,  et  auxint  le  dit 
William  Beaiamond  seremente  et  examine  deuaunt  le  dit  comisaill  dist  qil 
fuist  vilonousement  reproue  par  im  Johan  Foke  esquier  le  dit  Coimte  et 
au  darrein  par  le  Counte  mesmes  qil  fnist  perjurs  pour  lenditement  suisdite 
mes  ceo  fuist  aretter  plus  a  autres  qa  luy  dount  lui  couenoit  de  janoiller  et 
crier  merci.  Et  auxint  le  dit  Johan  Foke  '^*  dist  a  dit  Wilham  Beaumond 
qe  le  dit  James  Chuddelegh  fuist  faux.  Et  auxi  le  dit  Counte  disoit  a  dit 
William  Beaumond  qe  le  dit  Robert  Yoo  serroit  delj^erez  maugre  lez  dens 
lez  ditz  Johan  Wadham  et  Wilham  Esturmj-.  Et  Johan  Copleston  sere- 
mente et  examine  deuaimt  le  dit  coimsaill  dit  qe  le  dit  Counte  luy  reproua 
et  dist  qil  fuist  perjurs  pom-  le  cause  suisdite.  Et  le  dit  William  Burlestoun 
seremente  et  examine  deuaimt  le  dit  counsail  dit  qe  le  dit  Counte  luj'  re- 
proua et  dist  qil  fuist  fauxement  perjurs.  Et  Johan  Wotton  seremente  et 
examine  deuaunt  le  dit  counsaiU  dit  qe  le  dit  counte  luy  reproua  et  dist  qil 
fuist  perjurs,  etc.  Et  pour  ceo  qe  comande  feust  au  dit  Counte  par  brief 
destre  deuant  le  Roy  et  soun  counsaill  a  Westminster  al  jody  auantdite  de 
respondre  as  ehoses  qe  luj'  serroient  exposez  depart  le  Roy  a  quel  jour  le 
dit  Counte  vient  deuant  le  dit  counsaill  et  auoit  jour  outre  de  jour  en  autre 
tanqe  il  plerroit  au  Roy  dentendre  a  mesme  le  busoigne.  Sur  quoy  apres 
le  jeody  ^  proschein  ensuant  en  presence  de  nostre  seignour  le  Roy  et  des 
seignours  espii-ituels  et  temporeles  ouesqe  luy  esteantz  cestassauoir  le 
Due  de  Guyene  et  de  Lancaster  ^  les  Ercheuesqes  de  Canterbers  "  et 
Deuerwyck  ^^  Chaunceller,  leuesqes  de  Loundres  ^'  WjTicestre '"  leuesqes 
de  Dureham  '^  Seint  Dauy '-  Cestre  ^  Salesbirs,'^  Tresorer,  Hereford  " 
et  Chichestre,'^  les  Duces  Deuerwyk^  et  Gloucestre,''  les  Countes  de 
Derby  ''  Rotlond  "  Arundell  "  Huntyngdon  *■  et  Mareschall  «  et  le  Sire 
de  Roos  **  et  plusours  autres  ou  purpose  feust  enuers  le  dit  Counte  de 
Deuenshire  toute  la  matire  auantdite  et  auxint  ceo  qe  le  dit  Robert  Yoo 
feust  endite  de  felonie  deuant  les  Justices  de  la  pees  de  queux  le  dit  Counte 
de  Deuenshire  y  auoit  conisance  de  mesme  lenditement  et  ne  m3-st  pas  en 
arest  le  dit  Robert,  eins  le  recetta.  A  quoy  le  dit  Counte  de  Deuenshire 
respondy  endroit  de  message  qil  auoia  au  dit  Johan  Wadham  Justice  qe  ce 
estoit  voir  et  de  ce  il  se  myst  en  la  grace  nostre  seignour  le  Roy,  et  de  ce 

"  or  Fowke  of  Richard's  Castle.     Cal.  »"  William    of    Wvkeham,    bishop    of 

Pal.,  18  Ric.  II,  543;   Pole,  p.  414.  Winchester,  1367-1404. 

"  15  Feb.    The  meeting  on  this  day  is  "  Walter  Skirlaw,  bishop  of  Durham, 

noticed  in  the  record  given  in  King's  Coun-  1388-1406. 

cU,  p.  494.  "  John  Gilbert,  bishop  of  St.  David's, 

"  John  of  Gaunt.  1389-97. 

"  Wilham  Courtenay,  an  uncle  of  the  "  Richard  le  Scrope,  bishop  of  Chester 

present  earl  of  Devon,  archbishop,  1381-  and  Lichfield,  1386-98. 

97.  "  John  WaUham,  bishop  of  Salisbury, 

«•  Thomas  Arundel,  archbishop,  1388-  1388-95,  treasurer,  1390-95. 

96,  chancellor,  1391-96.  "  John  Trevenant,  bishop  of  Hereford, 

»  Robert  Braybroke,  bishop  of  London,  1389-1404. 
1381-1404. 


ESTUKMY   V.  COURTENAY  80 

the  said  John  Wadham  and  William  Estuniiy  had  declared;   and  also  the 
said  William  Bcamnont,  having  been  sworn  and  examined  before  the  said 
council,  says  that  he  was  vilely  reproached  by  one  John  Folk/^  esquire  of 
the  said  earl,  and  afterwards  by  the  earl  himself,  that  he  was  perjured  in 
the  aforesaid  indictment,  but  this  would  be  true  of  others  more  than  of 
himself  whom  it  behooved  to  kneel  and  cry  "  mercj'."    And  also  the  said 
John  Folk  said  to  the  said  William  Beaumont  that  the  said  James  Chudlegh 
was  false.    And  also  the  said  earl  said  to  the  said  William  Beaumont  that 
the  said  Robert  Yeo  would  be  deUvered  in  spite  of  the  teeth  of  the  said 
John  Wadham  and  William  Estunny.    And  John  Coppleston,  having  been 
sworn  and  examined  before  the  said  council,  says  that  the  said  carl  re- 
proached him,  saying  he  had  perjured  himself  for  the  aforesaid  cause.    And 
the  said  William  Burleston,  having  been  sworn  and  examined  before  the 
said  council,  says  that  the  said  earl  reproached  hun  saj'ing  he  had  falsely 
perjured.    And  John  Wotton,  havmg  been  sworn  and  examined  before  the 
said  council,  says  that  the  said  earl  reproached  him  saj^ing  he  had  per- 
jured, etc.    And  inasnmch  as  the  said  earl  had  been  commanded  bj^  writ 
to  be  before  the  king  and  his  council  at  Westminster  on  the  aforesaid 
Thursday  to  answer  to  the  thmgs  that  should  be  laid  against  him  on  be- 
half of  the  king,  on  this  day  the  said  earl  came  before  the  said  council  and 
was  given  one  day  after  another  until  the  king  should  be  pleased  to  attend 
to  this  business.    Whereupon  after  the  following  Thursday-*  in  the  pres- 
ence of  our  lord  the  king  and  of  the  lords  spiritual  and  temporal  remain- 
ing with  him,  namely  the  duke  of  Guienne  and  Lancaster,^*  the  archbishop 
of  Canterburj'^  and  the  archbishop  of  York,^'  chancellor,  the  bishops  of 
London,^^  Winchester,'"  Durham,^'  St.  David's,'-  Chester,''  the  bishop  of 
SaHsbury,'''  treasurer,  the  bishops  of  Hereford  '*  and  Chichester,'^  the  dukes 
of  York  ^  and  Gloucester,"  the  earls  of  Derby,''  Rutland,*  Arundel,^' 
Huntingdon  '"^  and  the  earl  marshall,'"  Lord  Roos,  ^  and  manj'  others, 
wherein  was  propoimded  the  entire  matter  aforesaid  touching  the  said 
earl  of  Devonshire,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  the  said  Robert  Yeo  was  indicted 
of  felony  before  the  justices  of  the  peace  from  whom  the  said  earl  of  Devon- 
shire had  knowledge  of  the  same  indictment,  but  he  did  not  put  the  said 
Robert  under  arrest;  rather  the  earl  harboured  him.    To  this  the  said  earl 
of  Devonshire  answered  as  regards  the  message  that  he  sent  to  the  said 
John  Wadham  justice  that  this  was  true,  and  for  this  he  threw  himself  on 
the  grace  of  our  lord  the  king,  and  as  to  his  having  reproached  the  men 

"  Richard    Mitford,    bishop    of    Chi-  "  Thomas  Fitzalan,  fifth  earl  of  Arun- 

chester,  138&-95.  del,  1381-141.-). 

"  Edmund  of  Langley,  1341-1402.  «  John  Holland,  half  brother  of  Richard 

3*  Thomas  of  Woodstock,  1355-97.  II,  earl  of  Huntingdon,  1387,  later  duke  of 

"  Henry   of   Bolingbroke,    later   King  Exeter. 

Henry  IV.  "  Thomas  Mowbray,  earl  of  Notting- 

*"  Edward,  eldest  son'  of  the  duke  of  ham. 

York,  earl  of  Rutland,  1390-1415.  "  or  Ros  of  Hamlake,  baron,  1384-94. 


81  CASES   BEFORE    TITE.  KING'S    COUNCIL 

qil  deust  auoir  reproue  les  gentz  qestoient  jurez  en  la  dite  enqueste  sur- 
mettant  qils  estoient  perjurs  il  conust  qil  parla  a  ascuns  de  eux  endisant 
qil  lui  peisa  grauntement  qils  estoient  perjurs  nemie  al  entente  de  les 
reproucr,  et  de  ce  il  se  mj-st  auxint  en  la  grace  le  Roy,  et  de  ce  qil  deust 
auoir  manace  le  dit  AYilliam  Esturmy  quauoit  commission  du  Roj-  dauoir 
pris  le  dit  Robert  Yoo  come  feust  surmys  au  dit  Counte  de  Deuenshire  il 
respondy  et  dit  qil  nauoit  conisance  qe  le  dit  William  auoit  tiel  commission, 
mes  il  disoit  qil  vorroit  auoir  debruse  sa  teste  et  de  ce  auxint  il  se  myst  en 
la  grace  de  Roy;  par  quoy  agarde  feust  par  nostre  seignour  le  Roy  et  soun 
dit  coimsaill  qe  le  dit  Counte  de  Deuenshire  soit  commis  a  la  prisone  a  y 
demorer  tanqil  eit  fait  fyn  et  raunceoun  a  nostre  dit  seignour  le  Roy  a 
volente  mesme  nostre  seignour  le  Roy.  Sur  quoy  meintenant  apres  touz 
les  seignours  auantditz  sibien  spiritueles  come  temporeles  prieront  a  nostre 
seignour  le  Roj'  de  faire  grace  au  dit  Counte  de  Deuenshire  eiant  regard 
qil  estoit  de  son  sank  et  de  ses  uncles  *^  et  qil  estoit  le  primere  foiz  qe  ascune 
tiele  pleinte  feust  fait  a  nostre  dit  seigneur  le  Roy  du  dit  Counte  de  Deuen- 
shire. Nostre  seignour  le  Roj-  a  la  requeste  suisdite  lui  fist  grace  et  pardon 
en  ceUe  partie  sur  tiel  condicion  qil  eidereit  et  sustiendroit  a  soun  poair  les 
leis  nostre  dit  seignour  le  Roy  et  les  execucions  dicelles  et  ses  ministres 
ceux  leis  et  execucions  fesantz  et  gardantz  issint  qe  si  ascune  defaute  feusse 
troue  en  luy  en  temps  auenir  a  contrarie  de  ce,  qe  le  Roy  nostre  dit  seignour 
resortereit  sibien  a  les  trespas  et  lexecucion  suisditz  come  des  trespas  et 
mesfaitz  de  nouelle  par  lui  faitz  et  perpetreez.''" 

WERKESWORTH  v.  PENSAX  > 

1393  ?  A  trespuissant  et  tresgracious  seignour,  nostre  seignour  le  Roy,  et  soun 
conseille  en  cest  present  parlement  -  suppliont  humblement  Robert  de 
Werkesworth  et  Margaret  sa  femme  qe  come  Percyuall  Pensax,^  Wilham 
son  fitz,  Robert  Rynell  et  Robert  Sherman  ouesqe  grant  compaignie  des 
plusours  autres  ses  fautours  et  communes  maufesours  viendrent  oue  force 
et  armes  al  meson  du  ditz  Robert  et  Margaret  a  Ulskelf  *  en  le  counte 
Deuerwj-k  le  Maresdy  prochein  deuant  le  fest  de  lasccnsion  '  de  nostre 
Seignour  darrein  passe  et  illoeqes  dispoillerent  les  ditz  Robert  et  Margaret 

"  The  earl  was  a  descendant  of  Edward  andage  was  reported  but  little  was  done 

I    through    his    grandmother,    Margaret  to  afford  roHef  (e.  g.  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  308). 

Bohun,  and  was  constantly  recognized  by  The  jircsent  petition  is  not  on  the  Rolls 

the   king   as   his   kinsman.     See   Geneal.  of  Parliament  and  was  in  all  probability 

Table,  Dugdale  i,  635.  left  to  be  treated  by  the  council   after- 

"  This  incident  is  to  be  connected  with  wards, 

the  proceedings  in  King's  Council,  p.  495.  '  It  may  have  been  with  reference  to 

See  Introd.,  p.  ciii.  this  case,  or  it  may  have  been  another, 

'  Ancient    Petitions,    nos.     1254    and  that    a    conmiission    was    issued    on    26 

10,645,  duplicates.  August,  1393,  for  the  arrest  and  imprison- 

•  If  the  inferred  date  is  correct,   the  ment   of   I'crcival    I'ensax   and   his  sons 

parliament  here  alluded  to  met  20  Janu-  Thomas,  William,  and  Robert  {Cul.  Pal. 

ary  and  ended  10  February.    Much  brig-  Rolls,  17  Ric.  II,  356).    This  is  the  only 


WERKES WORTH    V.  PENSAX  81 

wlio  liiul  sworn  in  tlie  said  inquest,  suggesting  that  thcj'  had  perjured, 
he  acivnowledged  that  he  spoke  to  some  of  them  declaring  that  it  weighed 
heavily  ujion  him  that  they  had  perjured,  not  with  the  intent  of  reproach- 
ing thcin,  and  for  this  also  he  placed  himself  in  the  king's  grace;  and  as 
to  his  having  threatened  the  said  William  Estumiy  who  had  the  king's 
commission  to  take  the  said  Robert  Yco  as  had  been  alleged  against  the 
said  earl  of  Devonshire,  he  answered  saying  that  he  had  no  knowledge  of 
the  said  William  having  such  a  commission,  but  he  did  say  that  he  would 
like  to  break  his  head,  and  for  this  also  he  placed  himself  in  the  king's 
grace.  Whereupon  it  was  adjudged  by  our  lord  the  king  and  his  said 
council  that  the  said  earl  of  Devonshire  should  be  committed  to  prison, 
there  to  remain  until  he  paid  to  our  lord  the  king  fine  and  ransom  at  the 
pleasure  of  our  said  lord  the  king.  Immediately  thereafter  all  the  afore- 
said lords,  spiritual  as  well  as  temporal,  prayed  our  lord  the  king  to  do 
grace  to  the  said  earl  of  Devonshire,  having  regard  for  the  fact  that  he 
was  of  roj'al  blood  and  one  of  his  uncles,''^  and  that  it  was  the  first  time 
any  such  complaint  had  been  made  to  our  lord  the  king  against  the  said 
earl  of  Devonshire.  Our  lord  the  king  at  the  aforesaid  request  extended 
to  the  earl  grace  and  pardon  in  his  behalf  on  condition  that  he  should  aid 
and  sustain  according  to  his  power  the  laws  of  our  said  lord  the  king  and 
the  execution  thereof  as  well  as  his  ministers  in  guarding  the  laws  and 
making  execution  thereof,  so  that  if  any  default  on  his  part  should  be 
found  in  time  to  come  contrary  to  this  (understanding),  our  said  lord  the 
king  would  take  cognisance  of  the  trespasses  and  the  execution  aforesaid, 
as  (though  thej'  were)  trespasses  and  malfeasances  coumiitted  and  per- 
petrated by  him  anew.''* 

W^RKESWORTH  v.  PENSAX  • 

1393  ?  '^^  ^^'^  ^'^^'  powerful  and  very  gracious  lord,  our  lord  the  king,  and  his 
council  in  this  present  parliament  ^  humbly  petition  Robert  of  Werkes- 
worth  and  Margaret  his  wife  that,  whereas  Percival  Pensax,'  William  his 
son,  Robert  RjticII  and  Robert  Sherman  with  great  company  of  many 
other  abettors  of  his  and  common  malfeasors  came  with  force  and  arms  to 
the  house  of  the  said  Robert  and  Margaret  at  Ulskelf  *  in  the  county  of 
York  on  Wednesday  before  Ascension  Day  *  last,  and  there  despoiled  the 
said  Robert  and  Margaret  of  their  said  house,  and  took  and  destroyed  all 

clue  to  the  date  of  the  petition.     This  [1915],  87).     His  son  Roliert  Pensax  was 

Percival  was  a  younger  son  of  Richard  pardoned  of  a  murder  in  1391  {Cal.  Pat. 

Pensax  who  in  35  Edw.  Ill  left  the  manor  Rolls,   14  Ric.  II,  356).     The  manor  of 

of  Skcghy  in  Sherwood  Forest  to  his  elder  Skcgby   was   inherited    by   William   and 

son  ^^■illiam,  of  wtiom  it  was  later  pur-  afterwards  acquired  by  Thomas  (Cal.  Pat. 

chased    together    with    a    messuage    and  10  Hen.  IV,  442). 

twenty    acres   in    Ashcfield    by    Percival  *  or  I'lleskclf,  a  township  and  village 

(Thoroton,  Xollinghamshire,  ii,  301).   Per-  on  the  Wharf  in  West  Riding  one  mile 

cival   also    had    interests   in    Horvngton,  southeast  of  Kirkby  Wharf. 

Yorkshire  (Feet  of  Fines,  Yorks.  Arch.  Soc.  »  14  May,  1393  (?). 


82  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

de  lour  dite  meson,  et  toutz  lours  biens  et  chateux  dedeinz  trouez  pristrent 
et  destruerent,  et  les  arbres  deinz  lour  jardein  [cjresceauntz  abaterent  et 
degasterent,  et  eux  de  lour  dite  meson  et  toutz  lour  autres  terres  et  tene- 
mentz  illoeqes  torteuousement  et  encoimtre  la  ley  ousteient,  issint  qe  les 
ditz  Robert  et  Margaret  nosent  approchier  a  lour  dite  meson  ne  poursuier 
la  commune  ley  pour  doute  de  lour  mort,  et  auxi  le  dit  Percyuall  ne  voet 
venir  a  response  pour  nulle  brief  du  Roi  qils  pourront  pourchacer  enuers 
luy,  a  grant  damage  et  anj'entisment  des  ditz  Robert  et  Margaret,  queux 
tortz  et  greuances  sont  trouez  par  enquestes  pris  en  pais  de  la  pluis  suf- 
ficeantz  gentz  touchant  la  matire  suisdite,  et  retournez  en  la  Chauncellarie 
et  enuoiez  en  bank  le  Roy,  qe  plese  a  vostre  hautesce  denuoier  pour  le  dit 
Percj'uall  et  les  autres  meffesours  suisditz  de  venir  a  response,  et  de  ordeiner 
qe  les  ditz  Robert  et  Margaret  purront  reauoir  et  rejoier  lour  dite  meson, 
terrez  et  tenementz,  oue  ses  chateux,  pour  Dieu  et  en  oeure  de  charite. 

[Endorsed:  —  ]  Purceo  qe  Percj'uall  Pensax  et  William  son  fitz  dedeinz 
escriptz  sont  enditez  deuant  le  viscont  Deuerwyk  des  articles  deinz  escriptz, 
come  piert  par  le  dite  enditeraent  retorne  en  la  Chancellarie  et  enouie  en 
bank  le  Roy,  et  auxint  purceo  qe  tesmoigne  est  qe  le  dit  Percjniall  est  com- 
mxme  mefJesour  et  meyntenour  en  paiis,  par  consideracion  qe  les  suppliantz 
ne  purront  pour  pouert  auoir  recouerer  par  la  commune  ley,  acco[rd]e  est 
et  assentuz  qe  brief  soit  enuoiez  al  \Tscont  Deuerwyk  de  prendre  et  arestier 
lez  ditz  Percyuall  et  William  et  les  autres  meffesours  dedeinz  nomez  ou  ils 
purront  estre  trouez  deinz  sa  bailie,  dedeinz  franchise  ou  de  hors,^  et  de  les 
amesner  deuant  le  conseil  nostre  seignour  le  Roi  pour  y  respondre  as  ditz 
suppliantz  des  tortz  et  damages  especifiez  en  cest  peticion,  et  affaire  outre 
et  receuire  ceo  qe  par  le  dit  conseiUe  serra  agarde  celle  partie  sur  peyne  de 
C  H.  et  qe  auxint  brief  soit  mande  au  dit  Percyuall  et  les  autres  sur  lour 
ligeance  de  y  venir  et  respondre,  faire  et  receuire  en  la  fournie  auantdit.' 

TENANTS  OF  WINKFIELD  v.  THE  ABBEY  OF  ABINGDON  • 
\ 

Le  roy  voet  qe  soun  consel  ordayn.* 

1394       A  nostre  tresredoute  et  tresgracious  seignur  le  Roy. 

Supplient  treshumblement  voz  poueres  tenantz  de  Wjnikfeld '  en  le 

countee  de  Berk'  regardantz  *  a  vostre  chastiel  de  Wyndesore  qe  come 

'  Liberties  were  more  or  less  completely  concede  anything  that  might  infringe  upon 

immune  to  the  \vrits  of  common  law.    In  these  liberties  {Rot.  Pari,  iii,  308).    Royal 

the  same  parhament  there  was  complaint  writs  did  not  run  in  the  palatinates  but 

that  homicides  and  robberies  were  being  the  non  omitlas  could  be  served  on  the 

committed  in  the  western  counties,  and  bailiff  of  a  liberty  in  a  county, 
then  the  malfeasors  would  escape  into  one  '  Apparently  these  writs  failed,  and  so 

or  another  of  the  Welsh  marches,  where  they  were  followed  by  the  aforesaid  com- 

thcy  were  under  the  sole  jurisdiction  of  mission  of  arrest  of  26  August, 
the   lord   of   the   place.      The   commons  '  Chancery  Miscellaneous  Inquisilions, 

desired  that  some  process  might  be  de-  file  254;   3  membranes,  A  the  petition,  B 

vised    whereby    the    fugitives    might    be  the  inquisition,  C  the  statement  of  griev- 

reachcd,  but  the  king  was  unwilhng  to  ances. 


TENANTS    OF   WINKFIELD    V.  ABBEY    OF   ABINGDON  82 

their  goods  ami  chattels  found  therein,  and  out  down  and  wasted  the  trees 
growing  in  tiieir  garden,  and  wrongfully  and  illegally  ousted  thcni  from 
their  said  house  and  all  their  other  lands  and  tenements  there,  so  that  the 
said  Robert  and  Margaret  do  not  dare  to  approach  their  said  house  or  to 
pursue  the  common  law  for  fear  of  their  lives;  moreover  since  the  said 
Percival  will  not  come  to  answer  any  writ  of  the  king  that  they  can  pur- 
chase against  him,  to  the  great  damage  and  ruin  of  the  said  Robert  and 
Margaret;  which  wrongs  and  grievances  have  been  found  by  inquisition 
taken  of  the  most  sufficient  persons  in  the  county  regarding  the  aforesaid 
matter  and  returned  to  the  chancery  and  sent  to  the  king's  bench;  may  it 
please  your  highness  to  send  for  the  said  Percival  and  the  other  malfeasors 
mentioned  above  to  come  to  answer,  and  to  ordain  that  the  said  Robert 
and  Margaret  can  again  have  and  enjoy  their  said  house,  lands  and  tene- 
ments;  for  God  and  in  way  of  charity. 

[Endorsed:  — ]  Inasnmch  as  Percival  Pensax  and  William  his  son  herein 
described  have  been  indicted  before  the  sheriff  of  York  of  the  articles  herein 
written,  as  appears  by  the  said  indictment  returned  in  the  chancery  and 
sent  to  the  king's  bench,  and  also  because  it  is  testified  that  the  said  Perci- 
val is  a  common  malfeasor  and  maintainer  in  the  county,  in  consideration 
of  the  fact  that  the  suppliants  because  of  (their)  poverty  cannot  have  re- 
covery bj'  the  common  law,  it  is  accorded  and  agreed  that  writ  should  be 
sent  to  the  sheriff  of  York  to  take  and  arrest  the  said  Percival  and  William 
and  the  other  malfeasors  herein  named  wherever  they  can  be  found  within 
his  bailiwick,  (whether)  within  franchise  or  without,*  and  to  bring  them 
before  the  council  of  our  lord  the  king  there  to  answer  the  said  suppliants 
for  the  wrongs  and  damages  specified  in  this  petition,  further  to  do  and 
receive  what  shall  be  awarded  by  the  said  council  in  this  affair,  under 
penalty  of  £100. ;  and  that  writ  should  also  be  sent  to  the  said  Percival  and 
the  others  upon  their  allegiance  to  come  and  answer,  to  do  and  receive 
after  the  form  above  given.' 

TENANTS  OF  WINKFIELD  v.  THE  ABBEY  OF  ABINGDON  > 

The  king  wishes  his  council  to  ordain.' 
1394        To  our  very  redoubtable  and  very  gracious  loril  the  king. 

Very  humbly  beseech  your  poor  tenants  of  Winkfield  '  in  the  count}'  of 
Berks  regardant  *  to  your  castle  of  Windsor  that,  whereas  divers  fees,  cus- 

*  Written    in    an    irregular    unclerkly  Monas.  de  Abingdon  (Rolls  Ser.],  i,  114, 

hand.    At  the  bottom  of  the  petition  there  429);    it  is  set  down  in  Domesday  Book 

is  a  roughly  drawn  signature  that  I  can-  as  a  tenement  of  the  abbey  (Domesday, 

not  interpret.  i,  59;    Victoria  Hist,  i,  340).    As  recently 

'  The  manor  of  Winkfield,  Wingfield,  as  25  Feb.  1393,  there  had  been  obtained 

or  Wenesfelle,  in  the  hundred  of  Riples-  a  certificate  to  this  effect  at  the  exchequer 

mere,  lay  3  miles  southwest  of  Windsor,  (Cal.  Pat.  231).     But  the  title  was  ques- 

and  extended  into  the  forest  of  Windsor.  tionable.    See  Introd.,  p.  ciii. 

The  abbey   of  Abingdon   claimed   it   by  *  Some  time  ago  Professor  Vinogradofif 

ancient    grants    of    the    crown    (Chron.  wiped  away  a  tradition  of  long  standing 


83  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

diuerses  fees,  custumes  et  sendees  sont  subtrahis  et  oustez  del  abbe  de 
Abbj-ngdon  '  par  exitacion  et  couj-n  Johan  Benfeld  *  et  William  Staffer- 
ton,  et  autres  malfesours  qe  plusours  extorcions,  tortz,  greuances  et 
oppressions  ent  este  faitz  a  voz  ditz  poueres  tenantz  en  destruccion  del 
eux  et  desheriteson  de  lour  heires  pour  toutz  jours  et  [en  prejudice]  de 
vostre  corone  et  vostre  fraunchise  illoeqes,  si  ne  remede  ent  soit  fait  par 
auys  de  vostre  tressage  conseill,  plese  a  vostre  treshaut  et  tresroial  mageste 
de  commander  vostre  Chaunceller  et  ordiner  par  auj's  de  vostre  tressage 
counseill  qe  hastive  remede  et  redresse  sibien  touchant  les  greuances,  torz, 
extorceons  issint  faitz  a  voz  ditz  tenantz  come  pour  la  saluacion  de  vostre 
droit  seignure,  qe  droit  et  reson  soit  fait,  sicome  la  commune  ley  demande 
pour  Dieux  et  en  oeure  de  charitee. 

B 

Inquisicio  capta  apud  Wyndesore  die  Martis  proxima  post  festum 
sancti  Petri  quod  dicitur  aduincula '  anno  regni  Regis  nunc  decimo  septimo 
coram  Gilberto  Burton  et  Thoma  Wyssjiiame  per  commissionem  domini 
Regis  cmn  aliis  assignatis  prout  predicta  commissio  plenius  contestatur 
ad  inquirendum  de  diuersis  feodis  consuetudinibus  seruiciis  a  domino  Rege 
subtractis  et  concellatis  in  villa  de  Hurst  ^  et  Wj-nkfeld  in  comitatu  Berk', 
necnon  bonis  diuersis  utlagatorum  in  eodem  comitatu  ab  ipso  domino  Rege 
subtractis  et  concelatis  per  sacramentum  Nicholai  Ajdward,  Johannis 
Cranemore,  Johannis  Kilbj-,  Johannis  Corbet,  Johannis  HauerjTig,  Johannis 
Kj-ngeston,  Johannis  SpjTik,  Thome  at  Lee,  Johannis  Benet  junioris, 
Willelmi  Rede,  Johannis  Placy  et  Thome  Herpecote,  qui  dicunt  per  sacra- 
mentum sumn  quod  omnes  tenentes  de  Wynkfeld  tenerent  omnia  terras 
et  tenementa  sua  in  villa  predicta  de  domino  Rege  in  capite  et  sic  sunt 
liberi  tenentes  domini  Regis,  set  de  Hurst  nichil  sciimt  dicere. 

Informacio  pro  Rege  qualiter  tenentes  de  Wynkfeld  tenent  et  de  quo. 

In  primis  dicti  tenentes  tenent  de  Rege  ut  de  capite  reddendo  vice- 
comiti  Berk'  nomine  Regis  annuatim  in  festo  sancti  Martini  unum  denarium 
vocatum  Herthpenny'  smnma  xxxd.  per  annum. 

Iteni  dicti  tenentes  reddunt  per  aimum  vicecomiti  supradicto  le  hidage'" 

that  there  existed  a  class  of  villems  re-  the  custody  of  the  park  and  warren  of 

garc/an<  in  distinction  from  villeins  in  ^os.s-.  Benhall  in  Suffolk  {Cal.  Pat.  RoUa,  251), 

There  were  no  such  classes.     It  is  only  and  was  made  in  1396  ranger  of  the  Forest 

when  there  is  a  legal  reason  for  connecting  of  Sapley  and  Wabridge  in  Huntingdon 

villeins  with  a  given  manor,  in  this  case  {Cal.  Pal.  691).    He  may  have  held  some 

Windsor,  that  they  are  spoken  of  as  re-  such  office  at  Windsor.    In  the  following 

gardani   (Vinogradoff,   Villainage  in  Eng-  statement   of   grievances   he    appears    to 

land  [1S92I,  pp.  40  f.).     In  other  words  the  have  lieen  acting  together  with  Stafferton 

villeins  claim  that  they  belong  to  Windsor  as  agent  of  the  abbot  of  Abingdon.     He 

Castle  and  so  are  tenants  of  royal  demesne.  was  finally  murdered  in  the  highway  of 

'  A   Benedictine   monastery   in    Berk-  Winkfield  (Cal.  Pat.  4  Hen.  IV,  225). 
ehire.    Dugdale,  Monas.  i,  505.  '  5  August,  1394. 

•  or   Benefeld,   formerly  a  servant   of  'A   single   manor,   lately   formed   by 

Michael  de  la  Pole,  was  granted  in  1386  joining   the   two   manors   of   Hurst   and 


TENANTS   OF   WINKFIELD    V.  ABBEY    OF    ABINGDON  83 

toms,  and  services  are  withdrawn  and  removed  of  the  abbey  of  Abingdon  * 
by  excitation  and  covin  of  John  Benfeld  '  and  William  Stafferton  and  other 
malfeasors,  who  have  committed  many  extortions,  wrongs,  grievances,  and 
oppressions  there  against  your  said  poor  tenants  to  their  destruction  and 
the  disinheritance  of  their  heirs  forever  and  [in  prejudice]  of  your  crown  and 
your  franchise  there,  unless  remedy  therefor  be  afforded  by  advice  of  j'our 
verj'  sage  council;  may  it  please  your  verj'  high  and  verj-  royal  majesty  to 
command  your  chancellor  and  to  ordain  by  advice  of  your  very  wise  council 
speed}'  remedy  and  redress,  as  well  touchuig  the  grievances,  wrongs,  ex- 
tortions thus  done  to  your  said  tenants  as  for  the  salvation  of  your  seign- 
eurial  right,  that  right  and  reason  maj'  be  done,  as  the  common  law 
demands,  for  God  and  in  the  way  of  charity. 

B 

Inquisition  taken  at  Windsor  on  Wednesday  following  the  feast  of  St. 
Peter  arf  nncula,''  in  the  seventeenth  year  of  the  present  king,  before  Gil- 
bert Burton  and  Thomas  Wissenanie  by  commission  of  the  lord  the  king 
with  others  assigned,  as  the  aforesaid  commission  more  fully  attests,  to 
inquire  of  diverse  fees,  customs,  sers'ices  withdrawn  and  concealed  from 
the  lord  the  king  in  the  manors  of  Hurst  *  ami  Winkfield  in  the  county  of 
Berks,  and  also  divers  goods  of  outlaws  in  the  same  county  withdrawn  and 
concealed  from  the  same  lord  the  king,  by  oath  of  Nicholas  Aylward,  John 
Cranmore,  John  Kilby,  John  Corbet,  John  Havering,  John  Kingston,  John 
Spj'nk,  Thomas  at  Lee,  John  Benet  junior,  William  Rede,  John  Placy,  and 
Thomas  Herpecote,  who  say  on  their  oaths  that  all  tenants  of  Winkfield 
hold  all  their  lands  and  tenements  in  the  aforesaid  manor  of  the  lord  the 
king  in  capite  and  so  are  free  tenants  of  the  lord  the  king,  but  of  Hurst  they 
are  able  to  say  nothing. 

Information  for  the  king  how  the  tenants  of  W'inkfield  hold  and  of 
whom. 

First,  the  said  tenants  hold  of  the  king,  as  in  capite,  rendering  to  the 
sheriff  of  Berkshire  in  the  name  of  the  king  annually  at  the  feast  of  St. 
Martin  one  penny  called  Hearthpenny'  sum  of  30  d.  a  3'ear. 

Also,  the  said  tenants  render  by  the  3'ear  to  the  aforesaid  sheriff  hidage," 

Whistley,  lying  6  miles  east  of  Reading.  collection  was  entirely  in  the  hands  of 

The  abljot  was  a.s.serting  the  same  claim  ecclesiastical    authorities,    but    here    we 

to  Hurst  as  to  Winkfield.    Chron.  Manas.  have  an  example  of  its  being  paid  with 

de  Abingdon,  i,  291-294.  other  annual  dues  to  the  sheriff. 

'  The  same  as  Peter's  Pence,  sometimes  '"  A  remnant  of  the  former  Danegeld 

called  Romepennj',  a  penny  traditionally  surviving  as  a  common  tax  (Vinogradoff, 

paid  by  every  householder.     The  portion  Society  iti  the  Eleventh  Ccniury,  p.  144).     In 

contril)uted  by  each  diocese  was  fixed  and  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries  it 

the  surplus  went   to  the   bishops,   arch-  was  not  maintained  in  all  counties  under 

deacons,  and  agents  whom  they  employed  this  name;    sometimes  it  was  irregular, 

(W.   E.    Lunt,    Financial  System   of  the  quando  eurrit.     The  usual  rate  was  2  s.  a 

Papacy,    Quar.    Journal   of    Econ.    xxiii,  hide  and  fractions  of  hides  in  the  same  pro- 

278  f.).     It  has  been  supposed  that  the  portion.    It  was  usually  paid  to  the  sheriff 


84  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

et  faciunt  sectam  curie  de  septimana  in  terciam  septimanam,  soluendo 
dicto  vicecomiti  le  hidage  ad  festum  Sancti  jMartini 

summa  xl  d.  per  annum. 

Item  dicti  tenentes  reddimt  vicecomiti  supradicto  in  festo  Sancti  Jo- 
hannis  Baptiste  pro  qualibet  virgata"  terre  ununi  denarium 

summa  xx\'ii  d.  per  annum. 

Item  dicti  tenentes  reddunt  per  annum  ad  Castrum  de  Wj-ndesore  pro 
pasturis  '^  xij  d.  ad  festum  Onmimu  Sanctorum. 

Item  reddunt  ad  Castrum  supradictum  annuatim  panagium  "  secundum 
numerum  porcorum  prout  contigit  pro  porco. 

Abbas  et  conventus  de  Abyngdon  ex  done  Regis  recipient  annuatim 
pro  qualibet  virgata  terre  pro  omnibus  seruiciis  et  custumis  iij  s. 

C 

Ceux  sent  les  tortz  greuancez  et  oppressionz  faitz  a  les  poueres  tenantz 
de  Wj-ngefeld  regardant  al  seignourie  del  Chastell  de  Wjmdesore  en  par- 
cellz.  Primerement  labbe  dabj'ngdon  claime  les  ditz  tenantz  sez  neifes, 
lou  ils  teignent  en  cliief  de  nostre  seignour  le  Roj',  et  ceo  par  excitacion  et 
couyne  de  Johan  Benfeld  et  William  Stauerton  et  autres  ses  adherentz,  les 
queux  tenantz  ils  vexent  et  trauaillent  de  jour  en  autre,  et  les  ont  empri- 
sones  par  diuersez  foitz,  et  ceo  par  cause  de  lour  faire  granter  qils  sont 
neifes  a  dit  abbe,  lou  ils  sont  frankes  et  de  frank  condicion,  come  pleine- 
ment  appert  par  enqueste  jadis  pris  par  vertue  dune  commission  en  cele 
partie  fait  denquerir  del  tenure  des  ditz  tenantz  et  des  diuersez  feez  cus- 
tumez  et  seruicez  a  nostre  dit  seignour  le  Roy  subtraictz  en  la  dit  vihe  de 
WjTikefeld,  et  aillours,  les  queux  tenantz  furent  trouez  frankez  tenantz 
nostre  dit  seignour  le  Roy  par  mesme  lenquest;  et  puis  par  cause  del  pin*- 
chasere  du  dit  commission  pour  le  profit  nostre  dit  seignour  le  Roj'  lez  ditz 
Johan  Benfeld  et  William  Stauerton  et  autres  de  lour  couj-ne  firent  en- 
diter  lez  ditz  tenantz,  par  vertue  de  quel  enditement  certeinz  dez  ditz 
tenantz,  cestassauoir  Estephen  Saward,"  Thomas  Somerton  "  et  Johan 
Saman  '^  furent  pris  et  amesnez  a  Loundres  et  illoeqes  furent  detenuz  en 
prisone  de  Flete  par  demj'  an  et  pluis  en  grant  duresse  mischief  et  disease, 
sanz  autre  cause  ou  procez  eux  siuinis,  et  puis  lour  deUuerance  hors  de 

on  his  toum  or  in  the  hundred  court,  by  Society  in  Ihe  Eleventh  Century,  pp.  150- 

the  knight's  fee,  vill  or  hundred.     Some-  152).  In  a  case  being  tried  in  Hampshire  4 

times  it  was  paid  to  the  lord  of  the  manor,  Ed.  II,  a  bovatc,  that  is  half  of  a  virgate, 

who  either  retained  it  or  paid  it  over  to  was  offered  for   16  acres,  but  the  chief 

the  king  (Neilson,  Customary  Rents  [Ox-  justice  answered,   "  Some  carucates  and 

ford  Studies),  ii,   115  f.).     In  the  present  bovates  are  held  for  more  and  some  for 

case  it  was  a  customary  annual  due.  less    acres"    (Year   Boohs   [Selden   Soc], 

"  The  virgate  was  considered  the  nor-  4  Ed.  II,  46).    Also  supra,  p.  1,  n.  4. 

mal    holding   of   a    peasant;     the    usual  "  There  were  many  different  names  and 

equation  was  4  virgates  to  the  hide,  al-  modes  of  computing  pasture  rents.    Neil- 

though  in  locaUties  it  might  run  8  virgates  son,  pp.  68  f. 

to  thehide  (Vinogradoff,  V'iViairuise,  p.  148;  "  A  due  for  the  agistment  of   swine, 


TENANTS   OF   WINKFIELD    V.  ABBEY   OF   ABINGDON  84 

and  thej-  make  suit  of  court  every  third  week,  paj'ing  to  the  aforesaid 
sheriff  the  iiitiage  at  the  feast  of  St.  Martin  sum  of  40  d.  a  year. 

Also,  the  said  tenants  render  to  the  aforesaid  sheriff  in  the  feast  of  St. 
John  the  Baptist  for  each  virgate  "  of  land  one  penny 

sum  of  27  d.  a  year. 

Also,  the  said  tenants  render  aimually  at  the  castle  of  Windsor  for 
pasture  '^  12  d.  at  All  Saints'. 

Also,  they  render  at  the  aforesaid  Castle  annually  pannage  '^  according 
to  the  number  of  swine  as  it  happens  for  swine. 

The  abbot  and  convent  of  Aliingdon  by  gift  of  the  king  receive  annu- 
ally for  each  virgate  of  laud  for  all  services  and  customs  3  s. 

C 

These  are  the  wrongs,  grievances,  and  oppressions  done  to  the  poor 
tenants  of  Winkfield  regardant  to  the  lordship  of  the  castle  of  Windsor  in 
particular.  First,  the  abbot  of  Abingdon  claims  the  said  tenants  as  his 
serfs,  whereas  they  hold  in  chief  of  our  lord  the  king,  and  this  by  excitation 
and  covin  of  John  Benfeld  and  William  Staverton  and  others  of  their  ad- 
herents, which  tenants  they  vex  and  harass  from  day  to  day,  and  have 
imprisoned  them  at  divers  times,  and  this  in  order  to  make  them  admit 
that  they  are  serfs  of  the  said  abbot,  whereas  they  are  free  and  of  free  con- 
dition, as  plainly  appears  by  the  inquest  just  taken  bj'  virtue  of  a  com- 
mission given  in  this  part  to  incjuire  of  the  tenure  of  the  said  tenants  and 
of  the  divers  fees,  customs,  and  services  withdrawn  from  our  said  lord  the 
king  in  the  said  manor  of  Winkfield  and  elsewhere,  which  tenants  have 
been  found  free  tenants  of  our  lord  the  king  by  the  same  inquest;  and 
then,  because  of  the  purchase  of  the  said  commission  for  the  profit  of  our 
lord  the  king,  the  said  John  Benfeld,  WUham  Stamerton,  and  others  of 
their  covin  had  the  said  tenants  indicted,  by  virtue  of  which  indictment 
certain  of  the  said  tenants,  namely  Stephen  Saward,'^  Thomas  Somerton," 
and  John  Saman  '*  were  seized  and  taken  to  London  and  were  there  de- 
tained in  the  prison  of  the  Fleet  for  half  a  year  and  more  in  great 
duress,  mischief,  and  disease,  without  other  cause  or  process  surmised 
against  them,   and   after  their  deliverance  from  the  Fleet   they  were 

payable   by   villeins   only,   freemen   pre-  "  These  men  were  leaders  or  attorneys 

sumably  having  some  wood-rights  of  their  of  the  peasants.     Saward  and  Somerton 

own.    There  were  different  modes  of  com-  are  mentioned  as  requesting  the  extract 

puting  it,  e.  g.  for  10  pigs  the  lord  shall  from    Domesday     Book    regarding     the 

have  the  third  best  pig  which  he  shall  title  of  the  manor.     Cal.  Pat.  16  Ric.  II, 

choose;    for  a  pig  over  one  year  old  he  231. 

shall  have  a  penny,  for  a  pig  a  half  year  "^  or  Salaman,  mentioned  as  forester  of 

old  a  halfpenny,  &c.  (C.  Dcedcs,  Register  Cranbourn    in    Windsor    Forest,    whose 

o/^Tire?/,  138,  139,  144).    Sometimes  it  was  death   occurred  before   December,    1395. 

exacted  as  a  regular  due,  whether  any  pigs  Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  658. 
w^ere  raised  or  not  (Neilson,  pp  71  f.). 


85  CASES   BEFORE    THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

Flete  ils  furent  amesmez  abbey  de  Abbj'ndon  sur  sauue  garde,  et  illoeqes 
furent  cloisez  et  enprisonez  en  un  maeson,  et  le  dit  abbe  et  son  conseil  firent 
certeinz  escriptz  de  quele  matiere  les  ditz  prisoners  ne  sauoient  rien,  les 
queux  vindrent  a  ditz  Estephen,  Thomas  et  Johan  en  prisone,  et  voudrent 
eux  auoir  fait  ensealer  lez  ditz  escriptz,  lou  ils  tout  outrement  refusent,  et 
puis  certeinz  de  soun  conseil  ensealerent  lez  ditz  escriptz  '^  de  lour  propre 
auctorite,  et  ore  ils  surmettent  qils  ont  ensealez  lez  ditz  escriptz,  lou  ils 
unqes  rien  ne  fesoient ;  et  puis  lez  ditz  Johan  Benefeld  et  William  Stauerton 
et  un  Johan  Warfeld,  qest  mort,  entreront  en  toutz  les  terres  et  tenementes 
des  ditz  Estephen  Thomas  et  Johan  Soman  et  unquore  lez  deteigement 
ensemblent  ou  toutz  lour  biens  et  chateux  illoeqes  trouez  a  lour  propre 
oeps.  Et  outre  ceo,  lou  certeinz  forfaitures  et  eschetez  ont  este  donez  a 
nostre  dit  seignour  le  Roy  par  diuersez  enquestez  pris  deuant  leschetour 
illoeqes  lez  ditz  Johan  Benefeld  et  William  Stauerton  et  autres  de  lour  ad- 
herantz  oretarde  de  nouelle  firent  un  enquest  de  lour  afiinite  couyne  et 
vesture  passer  encontre  nostre  dit  seignour  le  Roj-  a  Madenhethe  des 
mesmes  les  forfaitures  et  eschetez  amontantz  a  xl  marcs  et  pluis,  et  issint 
ils  sont  oustez  de  tout  ceo  qils  auoient  par  cause  qils  ne  voillent  granter  et 
consentier  as  ditz  abbe,  Johan  Benefeld  et  William  Stauerton  et  autres  de 
lour  coujTie  pour  desheriter  nostre  dit  seignour  le  Roy  de  parcell  de  son 
seignourie  illoeqes,  dont  ils  prient  une  commission  directez  as  certeinz 
Justicez  denquerer  de  toutz  les  greuansez  torts  et  extorsions  issint  faitz 
sibien  as  ditz  tenantz  come  en  prejudice  et  arrerisement  del  seignourie 
nostre  dit  seignour  le  Roy  illoeqes  ou  autrement  qils  soient  fait  venir  deuant 
le  conseil  a  respondre  la  matiere  auantdite  et  as  autres  choses  qe  lour  serront 
surmys  pur  le  profit  nostre  dit  seignour  le  Roj'." 

HOGOXOXA  V.  A  FRL\R  AUSTIX  » 

1401        A  tressage  conseil  nostre  seignour  le  Roy. 

Supplie  humblement  son  pouere  chapellein  Xichol  Hogonona  ^  del  terre 
dirlande  qe  come  11  soy  purpoisa  oretarde  pour  aler  al  Courte  du  Rome  en 
pelrinage  par  cause  de  certeins  avowes  qil  auoit  fait,  et  issint  vient  en 
Engleterre,  et  quant  il  feusse  venuz  a  Oxenford  il  compaigna  ouesqe  un 
frere  Austyn  et  a  luy  dona  xl  d.  et  ses  costages  pur  luy  amesnir  a  Londres, 
et  auxi  il  deUuera  a  dit  frere  Ix  s.  pur  gardir;  et  quant  ils  furent  venuz  a 
Londres  le  dit  pouere  Chapellein  demanda  liuere  de  soun  dit  argent  et 
voudra  auoir  pursue  pur  soun  brief  de  passage '  et  [en]  le  mesne  temps  le 

"  These  may  have  had  to  do  with  the  '  Of  the  complainant  himself  nothing 

extract  from  Domesday  just  mentioned.  further  is  known,  but  from  what  follows 

"  So  far  as  we  know,  nothing  was  done  we  see  that  he  wiis  one  of  those  wandering 

in  answer  to   their   prayer  until   4  Dec.  Irish  clerks  against  whom  there  was  much 

1397,  when  a  commission  was  issued,  fol-  complaint    at    Oxford    and    Cambridge. 

lowed  by  another  on  16  July,  139S.    Cal.  These  "  vagabonds,"  it  was  said,  come  in 

Pat.  Rolls,  310,  433.  the  habit  of  poor  scholars,  live  vrndcr  the 

'  Ancient  Fetitiom,  no.  S55C.  government  of  no  principals,  lurk  about 


HOGONONA   V.  A   FRIAR   AUSTIN  85 

taken  to  the  abbey  of  Abingdon  under  safeguard,  and  were  there  shut  and 
hnprisoncd  in  a  house,  and  the  said  abbot  and  his  counsel  made  certain 
writings,  of  what  matter  the  said  prisoners  know  nothing,  and  these  men 
came  to  the  said  Stephen,  Thomas,  and  John  in  prison,  and  would  have 
made  them  enseal  the  said  writings,  whereas  they  refused  everything  fur- 
ther, and  then  certain  (men)  of  their  counsel  of  their  own  autliority  en- 
sealed the  said  writings,  and  now  they  submit  that  the  tenants  have  en- 
sealed the  said  writings,'"  whereas  they  have  never  done  anything;  and 
then  the  said  John  Benefeld  and  William  Staverton  and  one  John  Warfeld, 
who  is  dead,  entered  all  the  lands  and  tenements  of  the  said  Stephen, 
Thomas,  and  John  Saman  and  still  detain  them  together  with  all  their 
goods  and  chattels  found  there  to  then-  own  use.  And  moreover,  whereas 
certain  forfeitures  and  escheats  have  been  given  to  our  lord  the  king  by 
diverse  mquests  taken  before  the  escheator  there,  the  said  John  Benefeld 
and  William  Staverton  and  others  of  their  adherence  lately  anew  caused 
an  inquest  of  their  affinity,  covin,  and  livery  to  be  held  against  our  lord 
the  kmg  at  Maidenhead  concerning  the  same  forfeitures  and  escheats 
amounting  to  40  marks  and  more,  and  so  the  tenants  are  ousted  of  all  that 
they  had  because  they  were  unwilhng  to  yield  and  consent  to  the  said 
abbot,  John  Benefeltl  and  William  Staverton  and  others  of  their  covin  in 
order  to  disinherit  our  lord  the  king  of  part  of  his  lordship  there,  wherefore 
they  pray  for  a  commission  directed  to  certain  justices  to  inquire  of  all 
the  grievances,  wrongs,  and  extortions  thus  done  as  well  to  the  said  tenants 
as  in  prejudice  and  diminution  of  the  lordship  of  our  lord  the  king  there,  or 
else  that  they  be  required  to  come  before  the  council  to  answer  for  the 
matter  aforesaid  and  for  other  thmgs  that  will  be  submitted  to  them  for 
the  profit  of  our  said  lord  the  king." 

HOGONONA  V.  A  FRIAR  AUSTIN  • 

1401        To  the  very  sage  council  of  our  lord  the  king. 

Humbly  beseecheth  his  poor  chaplain  Nicholas  Hogonona  ^  of  the  land 
of  Ireland  that  whereas  he  lately  proposed  to  go  on  a  pilgrimage  to  the 
court  of  Rome  by  reason  of  certain  vows  that  he  had  made,  and  so  came  to 
England,  and  when  he  had  come  to  Oxford  he  associated  with  a  friar  Austin, 
and  gave  him  40  d.  and  his  costs  to  bring  him  to  London,  and  also  he  de- 
hvered  to  the  said  friar  60  s.  to  keep;  and  when  they  had  come  to  London 
the  said  poor  chaplain  demanded  the  return  of  his  said  money  and  wished 
to  have  suit  for  his  writ  of  passage,'  and  in  the  meantime  the  said  friar 

taverns  and  houses  of  ill-repute  and  go  to  1376,  required  that  none  should  cross 

abroad  at  night  to  commit  burglaries,  &c.  the  seas  without  the  king's  license  {Cat. 

There  was  no  end  of  the  disturbances  at  Fat.   50  Ed.   Ill,   312).     The  statute   5 

Oxford  attributed  to  Welshmen  and  Irish-  Rio.  II,  I,  c.  2,  required  a  Ucense  of  all 

men  of  this  character.    C.  Headlam,  Ox-  travellers,  except  lords,  well  known  mer- 

ford  (1904),  p.  200.  chants  and  soldiers.    In  1389,  pilgrims  and 

'  An  ordinance  of  the  council,  traceable  other   travellers   to   the   Continent   were 


86  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

dit  frere  vient  a  certeins  gentz  de  Londres  et  fist  une  suggestion  nient 
verraie,  sunnettant  qil  feusse  iin  wilde  Irisshman  ^  et  ennemy  a  nostre  dit 
seignour  le  Roy,  et  ceo  a  lentent  dauoir  ewe  soun  dit  argent  et  soun  liuere 
appelle  porthous,'  le  quel  liure  unqore  il  detient  et  parcelle  de  soun  argent, 
par  cause  de  quele  suggestion  il  feust  prj's  et  commys  a  prisone  et  illoeqes 
11  est  detenuz  en  grant  duresse,  meschief  et  disease,  lou  il  est  loial  homme 
et  bien  veullant  a  nostre  dit  seignour  le  Roy,  come  il  purra  bien  prouir  sil 
purra  venir  a  sa  respounse.  Qe  pleise  a  dit  tressage  conseil  granter  et  com- 
mandre  qe  le  dit  pouere  Chapellein  purra  venir  deuant  vous  a  respoundre 
a  tout  ceo  qascun  voudra  luj'  sumiettre,  et  sur  ceo  dordeignir  pur  sa  de- 
liuerance  selonc  ceo  qe  semble  a  voz  sages  discrecions  qe  resoun  et  bone  foy 
demandent  pur  Dieu  et  en  oeure  de  charite. 

[Endorsed:  — ]  Le  xx^•  jour  daugst  Ian  etc.,  second.  Accordez  estoit 
par  le  ConseU  en  quel  IMessires  le  Chaunceller,^  les  Eusqes  de  Duresme,"  de 
Hereford  '  et  de  Bangor,'  le  Conte  de  NorthumbrV  le  Tresorer  "  et  Mestre 
Johan  Prophet '-  estoient,  qe  brief  soit  fait  as  viscontes  de  Londres  pur 
deliuerer  le  suppliant  deinz  escrit  hors  de  prisone,  si  par  la  cause  deinz 
comprise  et  par  nulle  autre  il  soit  detenuz  en  icelle. 

ATTE  WODE  v.  CLIFFORD  • 

1402-3  Fait  a  remembrer  que  en  le  Parliament  tenu  a  Westminster  lendemain 
de  la  saint  ^Michel  ^  Ian  du  regne  du  Roy  Henri  le  quart  apres  le  conquest 
quart  Johan  atte  Wode '  bailla  as  seignom-s  et  Comuns  de  mesme  le  parle- 
ment  une  petticion  dount  le  teneur  sensuyt.    As  tressages  seignours^  et 

restricted    to    the    ports    of    Dover   and  '  Richard  Yonge,  1-100-05. 

Plymouth  {Rot.  Pari,  iii,  275).  "  Henry  Percy. 

•  This  was  the  epithet  used  by  the  com-  "  Sir  John  Xorburj-,  1399-1403. 

mens  in  1422  when  they  petitioned  the  "  First  known  as  a  clerk  in  the  office  of 

king  to  exclude  all  such  characters  from  the  pri-\'j-  seal,  who  from  13  Ric.  II  was 

the  realm.    The  king  assented  but  stipu-  doing  the  work  of  clerk  of  the  council,  and 

lated  that  Irish  clerks  might  freely  resort  in  16  Ric.  II  was  called  clerk  of  the  council, 

to  Oxford  and  Cambridge  if  they  were  sub-  He  was  practically  the  creator  of  this  office 

jects  of  his  (Rot.  Pari,  iv,  190)!    Again  in  (The  King's  Council,  p.  364).  In  17  Ric.  II 

1425  the  commons  asked  that  sureties  be  he  was  made  secondary  clerk  in  the  office 

required  of  all  Irishmen  U^'ing  in  England  of  the  privy  seal,  and  19  Ric.  II  received 

(Ibid,  vi,  162,  192).  a  special  honorarium  of  £100  for  his  sers'- 

'  Porteous,  porthosc,  porthos,  etc.  Lat.  ices.    He  became  a  member  and  attend- 

■porliforium,   a   portable   breviary.     E.  g.  ant  of  the  council  under  Henry  1\,  1399- 

"  By  God  and  this  Porthors  "  (Chaucer,  1401,  king's  secretary,  1402,  and  keeper 

Shipman's  Tale,  p  135;    New  Eng.  Diet.).  of  the  privy  seal,  1406-14.     He  was  dean 

In  1441  the  bishop  of  Salisbury  petitioned  of   Hereford,   1393-1407,   dean  of   York, 

the  king  for  a  gift  of  a  porthose  in  two  1407-16,  parson  of   Ringwood,  etc.,  and 

parts  (Nicolas,  Pro.  of  Privy  Council,  iv,  finally    founded    a    chapel    in    Hereford 

141).  Cathedral  (Cal.  Pat.  2  Hen.  V,  226). 

•  Edmund  Stafford,  bishop  of  Exeter,  '  Parliamentary  and  Council  Proceed- 
chancellor,  1401-03.    Diet.  Nat.  Biog.  tng«  (Chancery),  file  48,  no.  3.    The  initial 

'  Walter  Skirlawe,  1389-1406.  petition  is  found  also  in  Ancient  Petitions, 

•  John  Trevenant,  1389-1404.  no.  1082;    it  has  been  used  in  filling  out 


ATTE    WODE    V.  CLIFFORD  86 

went  to  certain  people  of  London  and  made  an  untrue  suggestion,  suhniit- 
ting  tliat  he  was  "  a  wild  Irishman  "  *  and  an  enemy  to  our  said  lord  the 
king,  and  this  with  the  intention  of  having  had  his  said  money  and  his 
book  called  portas,'  which  he  still  detains  and  part  of  his  money;  and  be- 
cause of  this  suggestion  he  was  taken  and  committed  to  prison  where  he 
is  detained  in  great  duress,  mischief,  and  disease,  whereas  he  is  a  loyal  man 
and  a  well  wisher  of  our  said  lord  the  king,  as  he  can  well  prove  if  he  can 
come  to  answer  for  himself.  May  it  please  the  said  verj'  wise  council  to 
grant  and  command  that  the  said  poor  chaplain  can  come  before  you  to 
answer  to  all  that  anyone  will  wish  to  surmise  against  him,  and  hereupon 
to  ordain  for  his  deliverance  according  as  it  seems  to  your  sage  discretions 
that  reason  and  good  faith  demand,  for  God  and  in  way  of  charity. 

[Endorsed:  — ]  The  25th  day  of  August,  the  second  year,  etc.  It  was 
agreed  by  the  council,  wherein  were  my  lords  the  chancellor,'  the  bishops 
of  Durham,'  Hereford,'  and  Bangor,'  the  earl  of  Northumberland,'"  the 
treasurer,"  and  Master  John  Prophet,'^  that  writ  should  be  issued  to  the 
sheriffs  of  London  to  deliver  from  prison  the  suppliant  herein  written,  if 
he  be  detained  in  prison  for  the  cause  herein  given  and  for  no  other. 

ATTE  WODE  v.  CLIFFORD  ' 

1402-3  Be  it  remembered  that  in  the  parliament  held  at  Westminster  on  the 
day  after  Michaelmas,^  in  the  fourth  year  of  Henry  IV,  John  atte  Wode ' 
presented  to  the  lords  and  commons  of  the  said  parliament  a  petition,  the 
tenor  of  which  is  as  follows :  "  To  the  very  wise  lords  and  commons  *  of 

the  present  text.  The  petition  and  its  in  question.  John  atte  Wode,  we  know 
endorsement,  which  are  interesting  in  from  other  sources,  was  seized  of  a  tone- 
certain  verbal  particulars,  are  printed  in  ment  called  Woodland,  3  Hen.  IV,  in 
Palgrave,  Original  Axdhorily,  p.  71.  The  Chedworth  manor,  a  place  16  miles  east 
present  record  to  the  end  of  the  petition  of  Gloucester,  an  hereditary  estate  of  the 
is  entered  also  in  the  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  513,  Beauchamps.  In  the  restitutions  that 
but  it  is  carried  only  to  the  point  where  were  afterwards  made  to  the  complainants 
the  case  is  referred  to  the  council.  No-  Woodland  is  mentioned  (i.  e.  Hugh  Water- 
where  ha.s  the  record  been  given  before  in  ton,  Close  Roll,  5  Hen.  IV,  ra.  11).  The 
full.  late  lord  of  Chedworth  manor  was  Thomas 

'  30  Sept.  1402.    The  third  parUament  earl  of  Warwick,  who  died  in  1401,  to  be 

of  Henry  IV.  succeeded  by  the  young  Richard  (S.  Rud- 

'  Mt  Wode,   Atwood,   etc.     For  this  dor,  Hist,  of  Gloucestershire,  1779,  p.  333). 

prefix  to  surnames,  e.  g.  atte  Grove,  atte  Under  these  conditions  the  complainants 

Gate,  atte  Well,  etc.,  see  Genealogist  vi,  lacked  a  vigorous  defender, 
pp.  31,  127.     Atte  Wode  is  a  family  name  *  Palgrave  {op.  cit.)  points  out  that  the 

of  Gloucestershire,  and  it  seems  likely  that  aildrcss  of  the  petition  as  first  written  was 

this  John  was  a  successor  of  Sir  John  whose  to  the  king,  and  afterwards  these  words 

inheritance  was  reported  l.i  Rich.  II  {Cal.  were    erased    and    the    present    address 

Inq.,  p.  m.,  iii,  132).     Petitions  are  apt  to  written  in.    There  was  a  tendency  at  the 

fail  in  giving  the  time  and  place  of  events,  time  not  only  to  exalt  the  judicial  powers 

and  the  present  petition  makes  no  men-  of  parliament,  but  also  to  give  the  com- 

tion  of  the  particular  properties  that  were  raons  a  share  in  the  judicial  powers  pre- 


87  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

comuns  de  ce  present  parlement.  Supplient  humblement  vos  poures 
oratours  Johan  atte  Wode  et  Alice  sa  femme  del  Contee  de  Gloucestre  qe 
come  deuant  ces  heures  ils  niisteront  une  bille  a  nostre  tressouerain  seignour 
le  Roy  de  les  diuerses  extorcions  et  oppresions  faitz  par  un  James  Clifford  * 
et  un  Anselme  Gyse^  a  ditz  suppUantz,  cestassauer  qe  come  ils  fm-ont 
seises  de  certeins  terres  et  tenemenz  a  la  value  de  v^'Tit  mares  par  an  en  le 
dit  Contee  et  dautres  biens  et  chateux  a  la  value  de  cent  marcs  et  plus,  le 
dit  Anselme  imaginant  coment  U  purroit  accroscher  a  lui  les  terres  tene- 
menz biens  et  chateux  susditz  conspira  ouesqe  le  dit  James  et  autres  mes- 
fesours  du  dit  pays  les  queux  par  lour  faux  conspiracion  et  ymaginacion 
procurerent  \m  faux  enqueste  denditer  lauant  dit  Johan  de  felonie,  par 
colour  de  quel  faux  enditement  le  dit  suppHant  fut  mj's  en  prisone  et  iUeoqs 
tenuz  par  trois  ans  et  demy  et  pluis  tanqe  il  fuist  acquite  de  la  felonie 
suisdit.  Et  en  le  mesme  temps  qe  le  dit  suppliant  fuist  ensj'  emprisonez, 
lauantdit  Ancehne  par  eide  et  confort  de  dit  James  ousta  les  ditz  suppUantz 
de  toutz  lours  terres  et  tenementz  et  eux  dispoila  de  toutz  lours  biens  et 
chateux  suisditz  et  toutz  les  ditz  terres  tenementz  biens  et  chateux  ad  tenuz 
et  occupiez  par  vij  ans  et  pluis  et  tout  le  boys  sur  les  ditz  terres  cresceantz 
ad  gaste  et  destruitz.  Sur  quej^  nostre  seignour  le  Roy  de  sa  grace  especial 
considerant  les  grandes  et  orribles  trespasses  oppressions  et  faux  conspira- 
cions  faitz  as  ditz  supphantz  par  aduj's  de  soun  conseil  granta  une  Comis- 
sion '  a  Johan  Berkele  *  chiualer,  WiUiam  Beauchamp  '  chiualer,  Richard 
Ruyall,'"  Thomas  Brugge,"  Robert  Pojtis,*^  et  Robert  WhitjTigton " 
denquerer  de  les  trespasses  et  oppressions  suisditz.  Par  force  de  quelle 
comission  les  ditz  Comissioners  firent  une  session  a  Gloucestre  deuant 
queux  les  BailUfs  qe  furent  de  lassent  et  coujTie  des  ditz  James  et  Anselme 
retorneront  un  enqueste  de  ceux  qe  furont  enditours  le  dit  suppUant  et  de 

viously  exercised  by  the  lords  alone.    In  This  Sir  James  was  honoured  at  court;  in 

the  first  parliament  of  Henry  IV,  1399,  the  1400  as  a  king's  esquire  he  was  granted 

commons  were  reminded  that  judgments  an  annuity  of  £-10  for  hfe  {Cal.  Pal.  191); 

in  parUament  belonged  to  the  king  and  the  in  1403  he  was  made  keeper  of  Caldecote 

lords,  not  to  the  commons,  who  were  to  be  Castle  {Cal.  Pat.  438);   he  was  sometimes 

considered  as  petitioners  and  not  judges  a  commissioner,  and  in  1404  a  member  of 

in  parhament  {Rot.  Pari,  iii,  427).     Still  parliament  for  the  shire, 
the  practice  continued  of  addressing  pe-  '  Guyse  or  Guise,  member  of  a  well 

titions  to  the  commons,  who  then  passed  estabUshed   local  familj-  alUed  with  the 

them  on  to  the  lords.     The  present  pe-  Chffords.    The  Guises  were  identified  with 

tition  is  endorsed  "  by  ad\'ice  of  the  lords  the  manor  of  Elmore  which  an  ancestor  of 

and  commons.''  Anselm  possessed  in  the  time  of  Edward  I 

'  Representative  of  a  younger  branch  (Atkyns,  pp.  230,  324).    Anselm  held  also 

of  the  famous  Clifford  family,  descended  the  manor  of  Daglingworth  at  the  time  of 

from  Richard  a  younger  brother  of  Rosa-  his  death  {Cal.  Inq.,  p.  m.,  iii,  335).    His 

mond,  mistress  of  Henry  II   (G.  Oliver,  later  wife  was  Catharine  a  daughter  of 

Cliffordiana,  p.  9;  A.  Clifford,  Collectanea  James  Clifford,  with  whom  he  was  allied 

Cliffordiana  |1877],  p.   160).    These  Clif-  in   other  ca.scs  of  the  same  kind.    Gyse 

fords  settled  in  Gloucestershire,   making  was  a  commissioner  of  array  for  Glouces- 

their  chief  seat  at  Frampton  upon  Severn,  tershire  in  1403  {Cal.  Pat.  440). 
a  manor  8  miles  southwest  of  Gloucester  '  This  commission,  dated  26  August, 

(R.  AtkjTis,  Gloucestershire  [1768],  p.  230).  1401,  was  issued  to  the  knights  and  gentle- 


ATTE    WODE    V.  CLIFFORD  87 

this  present  parliament.  Humbly  beseech  j'our  poor  orators  John  atte 
Wode  and  Alice  his  wife  of  the  county  of  Gloucester,  that  whereas  they 
previously  offered  a  bill  to  our  sovereign  loril  the  king  concerning  the 
divers  extortions  and  oppressions  conunitted  by  one  James  Clifford  '  and 
one  Anselm  Gyse'  against  the  said  suppliants;  that  is,  while  they  were 
seized  of  certain  lands  and  tenements  to  the  value  of  twenty  marks  a  year 
in  the  said  county  and  of  other  gooiis  and  chattels  to  the  value  of  a  hundred 
marks  and  more,  the  said  Anselm,  imagining  how  he  might  secure  for  him- 
self the  aforesaid  lands,  tenements,  goods  and  chattels,  conspired  with  the 
said  James  and  other  malfeasors  of  the  said  county,  who  by  their  false  con- 
spiracy and  imagination  procured  a  false  inquest  to  indict  the  aforesaid 
John  of  felony;  and  on  the  strength  of  this  false  indictment  the  said  sup- 
pliant was  put  in  prison  and  there  held  for  three  years  and  a  half  and  more 
until  he  was  acquitted  of  the  aforesaid  felony.  And  in  the  meantime  while 
the  said  suppliant  was  thus  imprisoned,  the  aforesaid  Anselm  by  aid  and 
comfort  of  the  said  James  ousted  the  said  suppliants  from  all  their  lands 
and  tenements  and  despoiled  them  of  all  their  aforesaid  goods  and  chattels, 
and  he  has  held  and  occupied  all  the  said  lands  and  tenements,  goods  and 
chattels  for  seven  years  and  more,  and  the  wood  growing  upon  the  said 
lands  he  has  wasted  and  destroyed.  Whereupon  our  lord  the  king  of  his 
special  grace  considering  the  great  and  horrible  trespasses,  oppressions,  and 
false  conspiracies  conmiitted  against  the  said  suppliants,  by  advice  of  his 
council  granted  a  commission '  to  John  Berkeley,'  knight,  William  Beau- 
champ,^  knight,  Richard  Ruyall,'"  Thomas  Brugge,"  Robert  Poyns,'^  and 
Robert  Whityngton  "  to  inquire  concerning  the  aforesaid  trespasses  and 
oppressions.  By  virtue  of  this  commission  the  said  commissioners  held  a 
session  at  Gloucester,  and  before  them  the  bailiffs  who  were  of  the 
assent  and  covm  of  the  said  James  and  Anselm  returned  an  inquest  that 
had  been  held  before  those  who  were  indictors  of  the  said  suppliant  and 

men  here  named,  who  were  to  inquire  into  in  1403  and  1413,  and  commissioner  of 

the  said  trespasses  and  oppressions  com-  every  sort.    Cal.  Pat.  Rolls. 
mitted  in  the  time  of  Richard  II  and  to  '"  or  Ruyhalc,  member  of  various  com- 

certify  the  king  and  council.     Cal.  fat.  missions;   he  held  two  parts  of  the  manor 

Rolls,  .554.  of  Dimock  in  Gloucestershire.    Cal.  Inq., 

*  Member  of  a  great  family  allied  with  p.  m.,  iii,  316. 
the  Beauchamps  (Rudder,  p.  270  f.;  Dug-  "  Bruges  or  Brigge,  of  Underhill,  some- 
dale,  i,  349).  This  Sir  John  was  justice  of  time  commissioner,  holder  of  Horsefeld 
the  peace  and  sheriff  of  Gloucestcr.shire  in  manor  and  a  half  of  the  manor  of  Cubber- 
1397,  commissioner  of  array  in  1399  {Cat.  ley.  Cal.  Pat.  3  Hen.  IV,  32;  9  Hen.  IV, 
Pat.  Rolls),  and  was  summoned  with  other  447;  Cal.  Inq.,  p.  m.,  iii,  316. 
knights  to  the  great  council  of  1401  '-  or  Poyntz,  sheriff  of  Gloucestershire 
(Nicolas,  Proceedings,  i,  160).  His  seat  in  1396,  commissioner  and  custodian, 
was  Berstone  in  the  hundred  of  lierkeley  holder  of  Iron  Acton  a  fief  of  the  late 
(Rudder,  p.  283;  Cal.  Inq.,  p.  7n.,  \v,  111).  Thomas    Earl   of    Strafford.     Cal.    Inq., 

'  Of   Powick,  constable  of  Gloucester  p.  ?n.,  iii,  249. 
Castle  in  1397,  granted  40  marks  a  year  "  or    Whittington,    son    and    heir    of 

out  of  the  revenues  of  Gloucestershire  in  William  Whittington  of  Pauntley,  elder 

1400,  justice  of  the  peace  in  1401,  sheriff  brotherof  Richard  thrice  mayor  of  London 


88  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

ceux  qe  feuront  seruantz  et  tenantz  de  dit  Anselme  et  de  ceux  qe  furont 
procurez  par  les  ditz  James  et  Anselme  et  qe  a  lour  custage  viendront  a  dite 
ville  et  puis  les  ditz  suppliantz  chalangeront  celle  enqueste  par  les  causes 
suisdites  et  pur  ceo  qe  lours  chalanges  furont  trouez  verraiez  et  le  dit  en- 
queste fuist  fait  en  fauorable  manere  pour  les  ditz  James  et  Anselme  et  les 
ditz  Johan  Berkele  et  ses  compaignons  aloueront  les  chalanges  du  dit  sup- 
pliant et  ne  voudront  mys  prendre  celle  enqueste.  Et  puis  a  \m  autre  jour 
les  ditz  Robert  et  Robert  sanz  ascun  autre  de  lour  compaignons  firont  un 
autre  session  a  lauantdite  Gloucestre  pur  mesme  la  matire  et  la  prist€ront 
un  enqueste  de  mesmes  ceux  qe  ensi  feurent  procurez  par  les  ditz  James  et 
Anselme  et  qe  a  lour  custages  viendront  a  mesme  la  \ille  et  qe  furent 
chalanges  e  triez  hors  de  lenqueste  adeuant  par  les  causes  suisditz  par  eux 
et  par  lour  compaignons  nient  allouant  a  celle  foith  as  ditz  supphantz  ascun 
chalange  qils  firont  pour  les  causes  suisditz  le  quel  matere  et  gouernance 
a  ceUe  darrein  session  est.bien  conuz  as  ditz  Johan  Berkele  et  Richard  les 
queux  sont  ore  en  ceste  Citee  de  Londres.  Pur  quoy  vous  plese  tressage 
seignours  et  Comuns  de  faire  venir  deuant  vous  en  cest  present  parlement 
les  ditz  Johan  Berkele  et  Richard  queux  sont  ore  en  Londres  et  eux  examiner 
sur  celle  matire  et  sur  ce  ordeigner  ascun  remedie  especial  pur  les  ditz  sup- 
pliantz; Considerantz  tresgracious  seigneurs  et  communs  qe  les  officers  et 
Jurours  du  dit  pays  sont  ensy  de  la  coujTie  et  affinite  des  ditz  James  et 
Anselme  et  ensi  par  eux  procurez  qe  les  ditz  supphantz  james  naueront 
droit  deuers  eux  en  celle  pays.  Et  auxi  les  ditz  supphantz  sont  ensi 
enpouerez  et  anientiz  par  les  orribles  trespasses  oppressions  et  faux  con- 
spiracions  suisditz  qils  nont  rien  dont  il  purront  pursuer  lour  droit  eux 
mesmes  ne  lours  enfantz  susteigner  si  vostre  tresgracious  eide  ne  soit  en 
cest  present  parlement  par  dieu  et  en  oeure  de  charite.  La  quele  peticion 
fuist  endorsee  par  auis  des  ditz  seignours  et  Commims  en  ces  paroles:  Soit 
envoiez  pur  Johan  Berkele  chiualer  et  Richard  Ruyall  de  vener  deuant  les 
seignours  de  parlement  ou  deuant  le  conseil  nostre  seignour  le  Roy  destre 
examinez  sur  la  matire  comprise  en  ceste  peticion  et  soit  envoiez  par  brief 
pur  James  Clifford  et  Ansehne  deinz  escritz  destre  deuant  le  Conseil  du 
Roy  a  certein  jour  et  sur  certein  peuie  a  liinitcr  par  mesme  le  conseil  et  qe 
mesme  le  conseil  eit  poair  par  autorite  de  parlement  dent  faire  droit  as 
parties  par  aduis  et  discrecion  de  mesme  le  conseil."  Par  force  de  quel  en- 
dorsement briefs  seuerals  desouz  le  grant  seal  feurent  adressez  as  ditz  James 
Clifford  et  Anselme  Gyse  destre  deuant  le  conseil  a  Westminster  a  les 

(Rudder,  p.  598).    This  Robert  was  justice  of  Parliament  (iii,  513)  leaves  off.    Upon 

of  the  peace  in  Gloucestershire,  1399- 1408,  the  petition  pven  in  Palgrave  (p.  71)  there 

commissioner  of  array  1399-1403,  one  of  is  an  endorsement  not  piven  in  the  above 

the  great  council  in  1401,  member  of  par-  record,    which    is   translated   as   follows: 

liament  in   1403,    140.5,   1411,  and   1414,  "  On  15  July,  4  Hen.  IV,  Sir  Henry  Malpas 

sheriff  in  1402,  the  time  of  the  present  one  of  the  masters  in  the  Chancery  of  our 

case,  in  1407  and  1412.  lord  the  king  delivered  this  petition  en- 

"  At  this  point  the  record  in  the  Rolls  dorsed  to  R.  Fry  near  the  gate  of  the 


ATTE    WODE    V.  CLIFFORD  88 

who  were  servants  ami  tenants  of  the  said  Ansehn  and  who  liad  l>ecn  pro- 
cured by  the  said  James  and  Ansclni  and  who  liad  come  at  their  expense 
to  the  said  town ;  and  then  the  said  suppliants  challenged  this  inquest  for 
the  causes  above  piven  and  for  the  reason  that  their  challenges  were  found 
to  be  true,  and  that  the  said  inquest  had  been  held  in  a  manner  favourable 
to  the  said  James  and  Ansehn,  and  that  the  said  John  Berkeley  and  his 
companions  allowed  the  challenges  of  the  said  suppliant  and  were  entirely 
unwilling  to  receive  this  inquest.  And  then  on  another  day  the  said  Robert 
and  Robert  without  any  other  of  their  companions  held  another  session  at 
the  aforesaid  Gloucester  upon  the  same  matter,  and  there  took  an  inquest 
of  the  same  men  who  had  been  thus  procured  by  the  said  James  and 
Ansehn,  (men)  who  at  their  cost  came  to  the  said  town  and  who  had  previ- 
ously been  challenged  and  rejected  from  the  inquest  by  themselves  and 
their  companions  for  the  reasons  given  above,  this  tune  without  allowing 
the  said  suppliants  any  challenge  that  they  might  make  for  the  aforesaid 
reasons;  this  matter  and  grievance  at  this  last  session  is  well  known  to  the 
said  John  Berkeley  and  Richard,  who  are  now  in  this  city  of  London. 
Wherefore  may  it  please  j'ou  very  wise  lords  and  commons  to  have  the 
said  John  Berkeley  and  Richard,  who  are  now  in  London,  come  before  you 
in  this  present  parliament  and  to  examine  them  in  this  matter  and  there- 
upon to  ordain  some  special  remedy  for  the  said  suppliants;  considering, 
very  gracious  lords  and  commons,  that  the  officers  and  jurors  of  the  said 
county  are  thus  of  covin  and  affinity  of  the  said  James  and  Anselm  and 
have  been  so  procured  by  them  that  the  said  suppliants  will  never  have 
justice  for  themselves  in  this  county.  Besides  the  said  suppliants  are  so 
far  impoverished  and  ruined  by  the  aforesaid  horrible  trespasses,  oppres- 
sions, and  false  conspiracies  that  they  have  nothing  wherewith  they  can 
themselves  pursue  their  right  or  support  their  children,  unless  your  very 
gracious  aid  be  forthcoming  in  this  present  parliament,  for  the  love  of  God 
and  in  the  way  of  charity."  This  petition  was  endorsed  by  advice  of  the 
lords  and  commons  in  the  following  words:  "  Let  John  Berkeley,  knight, 
and  Richard  Ruyall  be  sent  for  to  come  before  the  lords  of  parliament  or 
before  the  council  of  our  lord  the  king  to  be  examined  in  the  matter  con- 
tained in  this  petition,  and  let  James  Clifford  and  Ansehn  herein  described 
be  sent  for  by  writ  to  be  before  the  king's  council  on  a  certaui  day  and  under 
certain  penalty  to  be  determined  by  the  said  council,  and  let  the  said  council 
have  power  by  authority  of  parliament  to  do  justice  to  the  parties  by  the 
advice  and  at  the  discretion  of  the  said  council."  "  By  force  of  this  en- 
dorsement several  writs  under  the  great  seal  were  addressed  to  the  said 
James  Clifford  and  Anselm  Gyse  to  be  before  the  council  at  Westminster 

house  of  the  bishop   of  Chester  in   the  the  original  petition  endorsed  which  re- 
Strand,  where  Sir  T.  Longley  then  keeper  mains  in  the  keeping  of  Sir  John  Rome 
of  the  privy  seal  was  staying,   and  the  clerk  of  Parliament, 
aforesaid  Henry  testifietl  that  this  same  For  John  atte  Wode." 
petition  endorsed  agrees  in  all  points  with 


89  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

oytaues  de  seint  Hiller  '^  delors  prochein  ensuant  chascun  de  eux  sur  peine 
de  troiscens  marcs  pur  respondre  a  ce  qe  y  lour  serroit  surmys  et  a  faire 
outre  et  [receuire  ce  qe  serra  ordeinez  par  le  dit]  counseil  sicome  par  mesmes 
les  briefs  esteans  de  record  en  mesme  le  conseil  plus  pleinement  poet  ap- 
paroir.^* 

As  queles  oytaues  si  bien  le  ditz  Anselme  Guyse  et  James  Clifford  come  le 
dit  Johan  atte  wode  et  Alice  sa  femme  comparerent  deuant  le  dit  Counsail 
nostre  seignour  le  Roj^  en  quelle  mes  seignours  lercheuesqe  de  Canterbirs  " 
les  euesqes  de  Nicol  '^  Dexcestre  "  Chanceller  Dengleterre  et  de  Seint 
Dauid  -"  Tresorer  Dengleterre  et  de  Rouchestre  ^'  et  les  Countes  de  Somer- 
set,-- Northumberland,-^  Westmorland,^^  Wircestre,^"  le  gardein  de  priue 
seal,^  le  sieur  de  louell,-"  Johan  Skerle,^^  et  messires  Thomas  Erpyngham  ^' 
et  Johan  Cheyny  ^  a  celle  foit  la  furent  presentez,  deuant  quelx  seignours 
les  parties  suisditz  bien  et  duement  examinez  sur  la  matere  suisdite  et 
tout  la  dite  matere  as  ditz  seignours  bien  entendu  et  par  eux  bien 
examine  sembloit  a  eux  qe  les  ditz  Johan  atte  Wode  et  Alice  sa  femme 
furent  [grevjousement  et  encountre  la  ley  oustez  de  lour  terres  et  tenementz 
suisditz  par  lez  ditz  Aimselme  et  James.  Pur  qi  toutz  lez  seignours  suisditz 
qi  a  celle  foitz  furent  de  Counsail  nostre  seignour  le  Roy  ount  ordeignez  et 
agardez  par  autorite  du  parlement  et  par  assent  de  lune  partie  et  de  lautre 
qe  eux  sej-oimt  submys  en  lour  ordj-naunce  qe  le  dit  Johan  atte  Wode  et 
Alice  sa  femme  soient  restituz  as  toutz  les  terres  et  tenementz  suisditz  par 
entre  a  auoier  et  tenir  a  eux  et  a  lour  heirs  en  mesme  le  manere  come  ils 
tenoient  deuant  le  dit  ouster  quites  de  ditz  Ancebne  et  Amys  sa  femme  et 
James  et  lour  heirs  a  toutz  jours  discharges  de  toutz  maners  de  statutz 
reconusaunce  rentchargez  et  de  chescun  altre  chose  par  qi  les  ditz  terres 
et  tenementz  puissent  estre  chargez  puis  le  dit  ouster.  Et  qe  lez  ditz  Johan 
atte  Wode  et  AUce  sa  femme  par  force  de  celle  jugement  purrount  entrer 
en  lez  terrez  et  tenementz  suisditz.  Et  qe  ils  aueront  bref  dirige  a  le  vis- 
counte  de  le  Countee  suisdit  pour  eux  metter  en  possession  de  lez  terrez  et 
tenementz  suisditz  par  force  del  jugement  suisditz.  Et  qe  toutz  maners 
feoffementz  et  estates  faitz  par  le  dit  Johan  atte  Wode  a  Thomas  de  la 
Mare,"  Johan  Mene,  Thomas  Alford  persone  de  leghse  de  Coulegh,'-  John 

"  20  Jan.  1403.  "  John  Bottlesham,  140(>-04. 

"  This  vrrit  of  subpoena  addressed  to  "  John  Beauford,  d.  1410. 

Anselm  Gyse  is  annexed  to  the  original  "  Henry  Percy,  1342-1408. 

petition  {And.  Pet.  1082)  and  is  given  at  "  Ralph  Neville,  1364-1425. 

length  in  Palgrave  {op.  cil.  p,  71.)    The  "  Thomas  Percy,  d.  1403. 

initial  clause  contains  an  extra  phrase  so  "  Thomas  Langley  keeper,  1402-05. 

as   to  read,  Quibusdam  certis  de  causis  "  John  (Dugdale,  i,  559).    He  had  been 

coram  nobis  et  consilio  nostro  in  presenii  in  the  council  of  Richard  II  from  time  to 

parliamenlo  propositis,  etc.  time  since  1392,  was  keeper  of  the  privy 

"  Thomas  Fitzalan  or  Arundel,  1397-  seal  in  1403,  one  of  the  council  named  in 

1414.  parliament  in  1404,  and  again  in  1406,  but 

"  Henry  Beaufort,  1398-1405.  was  allowed  to  withdraw  {King's  Council, 

"  Edmund  Stafford  chancellor,  1401-03.  pp.  134,  153,  156). 

"  Guy  Mone  treasurer,  1402-03.  "  A  clerk  in  the  chancery,  from  1384- 


ATTE    WODE    V.  CLIFFORD  89 

in  the  octaves  of  the  followlnp;  Ililaninas,''  each  of  them  under  penalty  of 
300  marks  to  answtjr  to  that  whicli  sliall  be  alloRed  against  thcni  and  to 
do  further  and  [receive  that  which  shall  be  determined  by  the]  council, 
just  as  can  be  made  more  plainly  apparent  by  the  said  writs  which  are  of 
record  in  the  said  council."'' 

Upon  this  day  the  said  Anselm  Gyse  and  James  Clifford  as  well  as  the 
said  John  atte  Wode  and  AUce  his  wife  appeared  before  the  said  council  of 
our  loril  the  king,  wherein  my  lords  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,"  the 
bishop  of  Lincoln,''  the  bishop  of  Exeter,"  chancellor  of  England,  the 
bishop  of  St.  David's,  -"  treasurer  of  England,  and  the  bishop  of  Rochester,^' 
the  carls  of  Somerset,"  Northumberlanil,-'  Westmoreland,-"'  the  earl  of 
Worcester,^*  the  keeper  of  the  privy  seal,^^  Lord  Lovell,"  John  Scarle,^'  and 
Sir  Thomas  Erpyngham  *'  and  John  Chejmcy  ^  at  this  time  were  present. 
Before  these  lords  the  aforesaid  parties  were  well  and  duly  examined  in  the 
abovesaid  matter  and  after  the  whole  matter  had  been  well  understood 
and  well  examined  by  the  said  lords  it  seemed  to  them  that  the  said  John 
atte  Wode  and  AUce  his  wife  had  been  grievouslj-  and  contrary  to  law 
ousted  from  their  aforesaid  lands  and  tenements  by  the  said  Ansehn  and 
James.  Wherefore  all  the  aforesaid  lords  who  were  at  this  time  of  the 
council  of  our  lord  the  king  have  ordamed  and  awarded  bj'  authority  of 
parliament  and  with  the  assent  of  both  parties,  who  have  submitted  to 
the  ordinance  (of  the  council),  that  the  said  John  atte  Wode  and  Alice  his 
wife  should  be  restored  to  all  the  aforesaid  lands  and  tenements,  to  have 
and  to  hold  for  themselves  and  their  heirs  in  the  same  manner  as  they  held 
them  before  the  said  ejectment,  quit  of  the  said  Anselm  and  Amice  his  wife, 
and  James  and  their  heirs,  forever  discharged  of  all  manner  of  statutes, 
recognisances,  rent  charges,  and  of  every  other  thing  whereby  the  said 
lands  and  tenements  might  be  charged  since  the  said  ejectment.  And  that 
the  said  John  atte  Wode  and  Alice  his  wife  by  force  of  this  judgment  shall 
be  able  to  enter  into  the  aforesaid  lands  and  tenements.  And  that  they 
shall  have  a  writ  directed  to  the  sheriff  of  the  aforesaid  county  to  put  them 
in  possession  of  the  aforesaid  lands  and  tenements  by  force  of  the  said 
judgment.  And  that  all  sorts  of  enfeoffments  and  estates  made  by  the 
said  John  atte  Wode  to  Thomas  de  la  Mare,"  John  Menc,  Thomas  Alford 
parson  of  the  church  of  Cowley,'^  John  Bas  parson  of  the  church  of  Shipton- 

94,    clerk    of    parliament,    sometime    re-  of  the  house,  justice  of  the  peace  in  1404 

ceiver  of  petitions  {Rot.  Pari,  iii,  133,  184,  {Cal.    Pat.   Rolh,    517),    member   of   the 

etc.),  in  1390  keeper  of  the  great  seal,  in  king's  council,   1399-1406,  summoned  to 

1399  chancellor  and  member  of  the  coun-  the  great  council  in  1401  (Nicolas,  ii,  99). 

oil,  1399-1403  {Cal.  Pal.  Rolls;  Nicolas,  i).  "  He  is  on  record  as  holding  a  remainder 

"  A  servant  of  the  dukes  of  Lancaster,  in  the  estate  of  the  late  Peter  de  la  Mare 

chamberlain  of  Henry  IV  and  member  of  in   Herefordshire   {Cal.   Pat.   1   Hen.   IV, 

the  council.     Under  Henry  V  he  became  349),  but  what  interest  he  or  the  others 

admiral  of  the  fleet  and  steward  of  the  here  mentioned  had  in  the  estate  now  in 

household.  question  is  not  clear. 

'"  or  Cheyne,  knight  of  the  shire  for  '^  A    parish    on    the    Churn    in    East 

Gloucestershire  in  1399,  and  speaker-elect  Gloucestershire,   4J    miles    southeast    of 


90  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

Bas  persone  de  leglise  de  Shipton  Olj-ue,"  dez  ditz  terres  et  tenementz 
auantditz  soient  voides  et  de  nulle  value.  Et  qe  toutz  altres  feffementz  et 
estates  et  graxintes  faitz  par  les  ditz  Thomas  de  la  Mare,  Johan  Mene, 
Thomas  Alford,  Johan  Bas  ou  par  ascun  autre  de  les  terres  et  tenementz 
suisditz  a  Ancelme  Guyse  e  Amys  sa  femme  ou  a  ascim  altre  soient  voides 
et  de  nulle  value.  Et  qe  toutz  feifementz  faitez  par  le  dit  Anselme  et 
Amj's  sa  femme  ou  par  le  dit  Ancelme  soul  a  Hugh  Waterton  ^*  ou  a  ascun 
altre  de  lez  terres  et  tenementz  suisditz  et  auxint  toutz  altres  feffementz 
charges  et  toutz  states  faitez  de  ditz  terres  et  tenementz  puis  le  dit  feffe- 
ment  fait  par  le  dit  Johan  atte  Wode  a  Thomas  de  la  Mare  Johan  ISIene 
Thomas  Alford  et  Johan  Bas  tanqe  al  jour  de  celle  jugement  rendu  soient 
voidez  et  de  nuUe  value.  Et  auxi  qe  si  ascun  feffement  ou  graunde  soit 
fait  parascunnes  des  ditz  terres  et  tenementz  en  temps  auener  deuant  ceo  qe 
le  dit  Johan  atte  Wode  et  sa  fenune  soient  possessionez  dez  ditz  terres  et 
tenementz  par  force  de  agarde  et  jugement  suisditz  qe  ils  soient  voidez 
et  de  nulle  value.  Et  qe  les  ditz  Ancehne  et  Amys  sa  femme  parentre  cy 
et  lez  oytaues  de  seint  Michel  proschein  auener  relesseront  par  f  jti  leue  en 
la  Court  nostre  seignour  le  Roy  as  ditz  Johan  atte  Wode  et  Alice  sa  fenune 
par  force  de  ceUe  jugement  esteiant  en  peisible  possession  de  lez  terres  et 
tenementz  suisditz  tout  le  droit  qils  ount  en  lez  terres  et  tenementz  suisditz 
a  eux  et  a  lez  heirs  de  dit  Johan  toutz  jours  de  eux  et  de  lez  heirs  de  dit 
Ancelme  a  toutz  jours  as  costages  de  dit  Ancelme.  Et  auxi  qe  lez  ditz 
James  et  Ancelme  ferront  Monsire  Hugh  Waterton  chivaler  WiUiam  Rj-e 
de  Munmouth  et  WilUam  Guyse  fitz  a  dit  Ancelm  et  toutz  autres  gentz  qe 
ount  ewe  estat  ou  ascim  altre  interesse  en  les  ditz  terres  et  tenementz  puis 
le  dit  ouster  fait  as  ditz  Johan  atte  Wode  et  AMce  sa  femme  relesser  a  dit 
Johan  atte  Wode  et  Alice  sa  femme  et  a  lez  heirs  le  dit  Johan  tout  le  dreit 
qe  ils  ount  en  lez  terres  et  tenementz  suisditz.  Et  auxi  qe  les  ditz  James  et 
Ancelme  deliuerount  as  dit  Johan  atte  Wode  et  Alice  sa  femme  toutz  les 
chartres  et  munjiuentz  qe  ils  ount  ou  qe  ascun  altre  ad  ou  auoient  a  lur  oeps 
ou  al  oeps  le  dit  Ancelme  ou  sa  femme  puis  lousterfait  as  dit  Johan  atte  Wode 
et  Alice  sa  femme  touchant  les  terres  et  tenementz  suisditz  parentre  cy  et 
les  ditz  oeptas  de  Seint  Michel.  Et  quant  a  lez  biens  et  chateux  du  dit 
Johan  atte  Wode  prises  emportes  amenez  et  encariez  et  issuez  et  profitez 
des  ditz  terres  et  tenementz  prouenauntz  et  damages  qe  eux  lez  ditz  Johan 
et  Alice  ount  sustenuz  puys  le  dit  ouster  les  ditz  seignoui-s  en  le  dit  Coun- 
saill  ount  done  jour  outre  a  lez  parties  suisditz  destre  cy  deuant  le  dit 
Counsail  al  Oeptas  de  seint  Michel  proschein  veignant  pour  faire  et  re- 
cej-ure  ceo  qe  par  le  dit  Counsaill  ent  serra  ordeignez  et  agardcz  par  autorite 
de  parlement.    Et  pour  ceo  qe  lez  seignours  qi  a  cele  foitz  furent  de  Coun- 

Cheltenhara.     A  church  of  Early  EngUsh  "  Councillor  of  Henry  IV  (Nicolas,  i), 

architecture  still  remains.  constable  of   Windsor  Castle   (Cal.   Pat. 

"  A  parish  7  miles  southeast  of  Chel-  6  Hen.  IV,  489),  holder  of  estates  in  Lin- 

tenham,  next  to  Shipton  Sollars.  colnshire,  Herefordshire,  and  Gloucester- 


ATTE   WODE   V.  CLIFFORD  90 

Olive  "  of  the  said  lands  and  aforesaid  tenements  shall  be  null  and  void. 
And  that  all  other  enfeoffments  and  estates  and  grants  made  by  the  said 
Thomas  de  la  Mare,  Jolm  Mene,  Thomas  Alvord,  John  Bas,  or  by  anyone 
else  of  the  aforesaid  lands  and  tenements  to  Ansehn  Gyse  and  Amice  his 
wife  or  to  anyone  else  shall  be  null  and  void.  And  that  all  enfeoffments 
made  by  the  said  Ansehn  and  Amice  his  wife  or  by  the  said  Ansehn  alone 
to  Hugh  Waterton  ^*  or  to  anyone  else  of  the  aforesaid  lands  and  aforesaid 
tenements  and  also  all  other  enfeoffments,  charges,  and  all  estates  of  the 
said  lands  and  tenements  made  since  the  said  enfeoffment  by  the  said  John 
atte  Wode  to  Thomas  de  la  Mare,  John  Mene,  Thomas  Alford,  and  John 
Bas  before  the  day  of  this  judgment  shall  be  rendered  null  and  void.  And 
also  that  if  any  enfeoffment  or  grant  shall  have  been  made  m  the  future 
by  any  persons  of  the  said  lands  and  tenements,  before  the  said  John  atte 
Wode  and  his  wife  shall  be  in  possession  of  the  said  lands  and  tenements, 
by  force  of  the  aforesaid  award  and  judgment  they  shall  be  null  and  void. 
And  the  said  Ansehn  and  Amice  his  wife  between  now  and  the  octaves  of 
next  Michaehnas  shall  by  fine  made  in  the  court  of  our  lord  the  king  release 
to  the  saitl  Jolui  atte  Wode  and  AUce  his  wife,  who  by  force  of  this  judg- 
ment shall  remain  in  peaceable  possession  of  the  aforesaid  lands  and  tene- 
ments, every  right  which  they  may  have  in  the  aforesaid  lands  and  tene- 
ments, to  them  and  the  heirs  of  the  said  John,  from  them  and  the  heirs  of 
the  said  Ansehn  forever,  at  the  cost  of  the  said  Ansehn.  And  also  the  said 
James  and  Ansehn  shall  cause  Sir  Hugh  Waterton,  knight,  William  Rye  of 
Monmouth  and  William  Guyse,  son  of  the  said  Ansehn,  and  all  other  men 
who  have  had  estate  or  any  other  interest  m  the  said  lands  and  tenements 
since  the  said  ejectment  was  made  of  the  said  John  atte  Wode  and  AUce  his 
wife,  to  release  to  the  said  John  atte  Wode  and  Alice  his  wife  and  to  the 
heirs  of  the  said  John  all  the  right  that  they  have  in  the  aforesaid  lands  and 
tenements.  And  also  that  the  said  James  and  Ansehn,  between  now  and  the 
said  octaves  of  Michaelmas,  shall  deliver  to  the  said  John  atte  Wode  and 
Alice  his  wife  all  the  charters  and  muniments,  touching  the  aforesaid  lands 
and  tenements,  that  they  have  or  that  anyone  else  has  or  may  have  for 
their  own  use  or  for  the  use  of  the  said  Ansehn  or  his  wife  since  the  eject- 
ment of  the  said  John  atte  Wode  and  his  wife.  And  as  to  the  goods  and 
chattels  of  the  said  Jolui  atte  Wode  that  have  been  taken,  removed,  borne 
off  and  carried  away,  the  issues  and  profits  accruing  from  the  said  lands 
and  tenements  and  damages  that  the  said  John  and  Alice  have  sustained 
since  the  said  ejectment,  the  said  lords  ui  the  said  council  have  given  a  day 
further  for  the  aforesaid  parties  to  be  here  before  the  said  council  at  the 
octaves  of  next  Michaehnas  to  do  and  receive  whatever  shall  be  ordained 
and  adjudged  by  the  said  council  by  authority  of  parliament.  And  be- 
cause the  lords  who  were  at  this  time  of  our  lord  the  king's  council  had  not 

shire  (Cal.  Inq.,  p.  m.,  iii,  332).  Waterton  and  his  wife  all  claims  to  lands  in  Wode- 
afterwards  relinquished  to  John  atte  Wode      land  {Chse  Roll,  5  Hen.  IV,  m.  11). 


91  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

saill  nostre  seignour  le  Roy  ne  furent  mj's  pleinement  enfoumiez  queux 
bienz  et  chatelx  lez  ditz  James  et  Ancelme  auoient  pris  de  dit  Johan  atte 
Wode  ne  queux  issuz  et  profitez  ils  auoient  prises  des  ditz  terras  et  tene- 
mentz  puys  louster  suisdit  ne  quelx  damages  les  ditz  Johan  atte  Wode  et 
Alice  sa  femme  auoient  sustenuz  puys  le  dit  ouster  ils  agarderont  et  or- 
daigneront  qe  un  commission  issereit  a  monsire  Johan  de  Berkeley  monsire 
Morys  Russell  ^^  monsire  Walter  Hungerforde  '^  chiualers  Thomas  Brugge, 
Johan  Gybbes,  et  Johan  Gerald  denquerer  et  eux  certifier  del  value  des 
bienz  et  chateux  issuez  profites  et  damages  suisditz  et  de  touz  autres  wastes 
trespas  a  dit  Johan  atte  Wode  et  Ahce  sa  femme  par  lez  ditz  Ancehne  et 
James  faitz.'^  Et  outre  ceo  toutz  les  seignours  qi  a  celle  foith  furent  pre- 
sentez  en  le  dit  CounsaiO  nostre  seignour  le  Roj'  doneront  jour  outre  a  lez 
parties  suisditz  destre  deuant  le  dit  Counsaill  nostre  seignour  le  Roy  al 
Oeptaues  de  seint  Michel  larchangele  proschein  ensuwant  pour  faire  et 
receuire  ceo  qe  par  le  dit  CounsaUl  nostre  seignour  le  Roy  ent  serra  ordeignez 
et  agardez  par  autorite  de  parlement.  Et  les  ditz  seignours  ount  agardez 
qe  les  ditz  Johan  atte  Wode  et  Alice  sa  fenune  et  lour  heirs  auerount  les  ditz 
terrez  et  tenementz  en  pees  en  temps  auener  sauns  estre  oustez  molestez 
ou  greuez  par  les  ditz  James  ou  Ancelme  ou  par  ascun  en  lour  noune  assent 
ou  abettement.  Et  a  toutz  les  agardez  et  ordeignauncez  suisditz  tener  et 
perempler  les  ditz  James  et  Ancehne  serrount  obhgez  etc.,  a  dit  Johan  atte 
Wode  en  CO  li.  par  reconusaunce  en  la  Chauncellarie  nostre  seignour  le 
Roy.^ 

[Endorsed:  —  {!)]    Pur  Johan  attewode. 

Soit  cast  record  lieuz  en  presence  der  Justices  avant  quil  soit  engrossez. 

[{£)]  Fait  a  remembrer  qe  le  xxiij  jour  de  Juyn  Ian  etc.  quart  ceste 
Recorde  estoit  baillez  au  Counsail  par  les  mains  de  Thomas  Tyldesley  un 
des  sergeantz  du  Roj'  a  la  ley,  presentz  alors  en  mesme  le  Counsail  messours 
le  ChanceUer,  Gardein  du  priue  seal,  [messires]  T.  Erpyngham,  H.  Water- 
ton  et  J.  Cheyne.  Et  le  xx\'ij  jour  du  dit  moys  de  Juyn  esteantz  les  [ditz] 
seignours  et  le  Tresorer  dengleterre  ensemble  ouesqe  les  Justices  de  lun 
Banc  et  de  lautre,  et  le  chief  Baron  de  leschequier  en  la  Chambre  joignante 
a  mesme  leschequier,"  ceste  mesme  Recorde  estoit  baillee  et  deliueree  par 
mes  ditz  seignours  du  Counsail  a  les  auantditz  Justices  pur  veoir  ct  ex- 
aminer si  ce  soit  legitement  fait,  lesqueux  justices  sassenterent  alors  pur 
veoir  et  examiner  loriginale  peticion  par  le  dit  Johan  atte  Wode  baillee  en 
parlement  ouesqe  lendorsement  de  mesme  la  peticion,  et  ceste  Recorde 
auxi  ensemble,  et  ent  faire  relation  au  dit  Coimsail  de  lour  auis.''"  Et  apres 
cestassauoir  le  xv  jour  de  Juillet  delors  prochain  ensuant,  men  dit  seignour 

"  Commissioner  of  the  peace  in  Here-  1400.     He  held   the   manor  of   Durham 

fordshire,  1402,  commis-sioner  of  array  and  (Rudder,  p.  428;  Cal.  hiq.,  p.  m.,  iv,  130). 

of  the  peace  in  Gloucestershire,  1403  (Cal.  '•  Later  Lord  Hungcrford.     Did.  Nat. 

Pal.  Rolls),  a  knight  for  the  latter  shire  in  Biog. 
pariiament,  1402  and  1403,  and  sheriff  in 


ATTE   WODE   V.  CLIFFORD  91 

been  fully  informed  what  goods  and  chattels  the  said  James  and  Anselm 
had  taken  of  the  said  Joliu  atte  Wode,  or  what  issues  and  profits  they  had 
taken  from  tlie  said  lands  and  tenements  since  the  aforesaid  ejectment,  or 
what  damages  the  said  John  atte  Wode  and  Alice  his  wife  had  sustained 
since  the  said  ejectment,  they  adjudged  and  ordained  that  a  commission 
should  be  issued  to  Sir  John  Berkeley,  Sir  Morris  Russell,'^  Sir  Walter 
Hungerford,'*  knights,  Thomas  Brugge,  John  Gibbs,  and  John  Gerald  to 
enquire  and  to  certify  as  to  the  value  of  the  aforesaid  goods  and  chattels, 
issues,  profits,  and  damages,  ami  all  other  wastes  and  trespass  conmiitted 
upon  the  said  John  atte  Wode  and  Alice  his  wife  by  the  said  Anselm  and 
James."  Moreover  all  the  lords  who  at  this  tune  were  present  in  the  said 
council  of  our  lord  the  king  gave  a  day  further  for  the  said  parties  to  come 
before  the  said  council  of  our  lord  the  king  at  the  octaves  of  next  Michael- 
mas and  receive  what  shall  be  ordained  and  awarded  bj^  the  said  council  of 
our  lord  the  king  by  authority  of  parliament.  And  the  said  lords  have  ad- 
judged that  the  said  John  atte  Wode  and  Alice  his  wife  and  their  heirs 
shall  have  the  said  lands  and  tenements  peacefully  in  future  without  being 
ousted,  molested  or  aggrieved  by  the  said  James  or  Anselm  or  by  anyone 
in  their  name,  with  their  assent  or  abetting.  And  to  observe  and  fulfill  all 
the  aforesaid  judgments  and  ordinances  the  said  James  and  Anselm  shall 
be  obliged,  etc.,  to  the  said  John  atte  Wode  to  (the  amount  of)  £200  by 
recognisance  in  the  chancery  of  our  lord  the  king.^ 

[Endorsed:  —  (/)]    For  John  atte  Wode. 

Let  this  record  be  read  in  the  presence  of  the  justices  before  it  is  en- 
grossed. 

[(£)]  Be  it  remembered  that  on  the  23d  day  of  June,  the  fourth  year, 
etc.,  this  record  was  deUvered  to  the  council  by  the  hands  of  Thomas 
Tildesley  one  of  the  king's  Serjeants  at  law,  there  being  then  present  in  the 
said  coimcil  the  chanceOor,  the  keeper  of  the  privy  seal,  [Sirs]  T.  Erping- 
ham,  H.  Waterton,  and  J.  Cheynej\  And  on  the  27th  day  of  the  said 
month  of  June  in  the  presence  of  the  [said]  lords  and  the  treasurer  of  Eng- 
land together  with  the  justices  of  both  benches  and  the  chief  baron  of  the 
exchequer,  in  the  chamber  adjoining  the  said  exchequer,"  this  same  record 
was  brought  and  delivered  by  my  said  lords  of  the  council  to  the  aforesaid 
justices  to  view  and  examine  whether  it  was  legitimately  made;  and  the 
justices  then  consented  to  view  and  examine  the  original  petition  presented 
by  the  said  John  atte  Wode  in  parliament  with  the  endorsement  upon  the 
said  petition  as  well  as  this  record,  and  to  make  report  to  the  said  council 
of  their  advice.*    And  after  the  15th  dayof  July  then  following,  my  lord 

"  This  commission  was  issued  18  July,  *"  Upon  the  position  of  judges  in  the 

1403.    Cal.  Pal.  4  Hen.  IV,  284.  king's   council,   whether   as   members  or 

'*  As  to  the  outcome  of  the  affair  see  advisers,  see  ibid.  pp.  75  f.,  207.     Another 

Introd.,  p.  cvi.  instance  of  the  justices  being  asked  for 

"  The  star  chamber  is  often  designated  advice  is  in  Nicolas,  i,  80. 
in  these  words.    King's  Council,  pp.  355  f. 


92 


CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 


le  Chanceller  apporta  ouesqe  lui  yce  mesme  recorde  en  le  consail  et  y 
reporta  qe  les  susditz  Justices  lauoient  veuz  et  examinez,  et  qe  lour  semble 
ycelle  recorde  estre  ben  suffissant  et  legitement  fait. 


LEGAT  AND  ANOTHER  v.  WODEWARD ' 
A 
1410  Please  a  notre  tressoueraigne  Seigneur  le  Roy  de  vous  remembrer  coment 
le  vintisme  iour  de  may  derrein  passe  de  votre  grace  especial  grantastez  de 
voz  Escuierz  HelmeJ^l  Legat  ^  et  William  Loueneye  ^  le  garde  del  manoir  de 
BobbjTigeworth  *  ensemblement  oue  lavouson  del  Eglise  de  Bobbj-nge- 
worth  durant  le  nOn  age  Thomas  le  fitz  et  heir  Thomas  Enfeld  ^  et  ensy  de 
heir  en  heir  tancqe  acun  dez  ditz  heirz  a  son  plajii  age  aueigne  sanz  rienz 
ent  a  vous  rendre,  la  quele  garde  a  vous  appartient  par  cause  de  meindre 
age  du  dit  Thomas  fitz  Thomas  Enfeld  et  la  quele  garde  votre  chaunceller 
par  bille  de  votre  tresorer  ad  comys  par  voz  letters  patentz  a  William 
Wodeward  fundour  ^  et  Anneys  sa  femme '  durant  le  non  age  du  dit  heir.* 
Et  pour  ce  tresgracious  Seigneur  please  comaunder  votre  Chaunceller 
affaire  as  ditz  Heknyn  et  William  Loueneye  voz  lettres  patentz,  del  garde 
del  manoir  et  auouson  suisditz  del  date  de  votre  dite  primer  grant  et  de 
annuller  et  repeller  lez  ditz  lettres  patentz  par  votre  dit  chaunceller  as  ditz 
Wilham  Wodewarde  et  Anneys  ent  faitz  pour  dieu  et  en  oevre  de  charite. 

B 

.  .  .  s  deet  super  billa  in  dictum  parliamentum"  e.xhibitaethuic  cedule 

consuta  et  per  dictum  consilium  domini  [Regis]  .  .  .  ones  banc  subsequen- 

ii,  75,  84),  and  by  the  further  favour  of 
the  king  was  made  custodian  of  various 
estates,  of  which  the  manor  of  Bobbing- 
worth  now  in  dispute  was  one. 

'  or  Loveney,  an  old  servant  of  the 
dukes  of  Lancaster,  whose  household  ac- 
counts have  been  published  in  Wylie, 
Reign  of  Henry  IV,  iv,  159,  163,  168. 
From  1399  to  1408  he  wasjteeper  of  the 
great  wardrobe.  He  was  justice  of  the 
peace  in  Middlesex  from  1404,  and  in 
I'^ssex  from  1412,  sheriff  in  Essex  in  1408 
and  escheat  or  in  1411,  and  keeper  of  the 
king's  ships  in  1412.  Like  Legat  he  was  in 
many  instances  custodian,  commissioner, 
and  purveyor.  His  death  is  mentioned  in 
1424  (,Cal.  Pal.  KMh). 

*  Lying  west  of  Shelley  in  Ongar.  It 
came  ultimately  into  the  hands  of  John 
de  Vere  carl  of  Oxford.    Morant,  i,  147. 

'  A  tenant  in  chief  whose  death  is  men- 
tioned in  1405  (Cal.  Pal.  58).  Besides 
Bobbingworth  he  left  also  a  messuage  in 


'  Parliamenlary  and  Council  Proceed- 
ings (Chancery),  file  13,  no.  17,  in  two 
membranes:  A  the  petition,  B  the  certifi- 
cation of  an  examination  before  the  treas- 
urer and  barons  in  the  exchequer.  The 
petition  is  also  found  in  Ancicnl  Petitions, 
no.  11,504. 

*  A  faithful  servant  of  Henry  IV, 
noticed  in  1399  as  a  king's  esquire  with  an 
annuity  of  £20  {Cal.  Pat.  Rolh,  64).  In 
1401  he  was  granted  a  tun  of  wine  yearly 
out  of  the  king's  prise  in  the  port  of 
Colchester  (ibid.  12).  He  was  usher  of 
the  king's  chamber  in  1405  (ibid.  501), 
sheriff  of  Essex  in  1402  and  in  1407,  es- 
cheator  in  Essex  and  Hertfordshire  in 
1403,  commissioner  of  array  in  1403,  jus- 
tice of  the  peace  in  Essex,  1404-06,  mem- 
ber of  parliament  for  Essex  in  1406,  sur- 
veyor in  the  port  of  Colchester  in  1411. 
He  acquired  through  his  wife,  Alice  Man- 
deville,  various  properties  of  the  latter 
family  in  Essex  (Morant,  Hisl.  of  Essex, 


LEGAT   AND    ANOTHER    V.  AVODEWARD  92 

the  said  chancellor  brought  with  him  this  record  here  into  the  council  and 
reporteil  that  the  aforesaid  justices  had  viewed  and  examined  it,  and  that 
it  seemed  to  them  this  record  was  quite  sufficient  and  legitimately  made. 


LEGAT  AND  ANOTHER  i'.  WODEWARD  > 
A 

42Q  May  it  please  you  our  lord  the  king  to  remember  how  on  the  twentieth 
day  of  last  May  by  your  special  grace  you  granted  to  your  squires  Helming 
Lcgat  -  and  William  Lowney  ^  the  custody  of  the  manor  of  Bobl)ingworth  * 
together  with  the  advowson  of  the  church  of  Bobbingworth  during  the  non- 
age of  Thomas  son  and  heir  of  Thomas  Enfield  °  and  so  from  heir  to  heir 
until  one  of  the  said  heirs  arrives  at  full  age,  without  rendering  anything 
to  you  for  it;  this  guardianship  belongs  to  you  because  of  the  minor  age 
of  the  said  Thomas  son  of  Thomas  Enfield,  and  your  chancellor  by  bill  of 
your  treasurer  has  couunitted  it  by  your  letters  patent  to  William  Wode- 
ward  "founder,"'  and  Agnes  his  wife'  during  the  nonage  of  the  said  heir.* 
Wherefore,  very  gracious  lord,  maj*  it  please  you  to  command  your  chan- 
cellor to  issue  to  the  said  Helming  and  William  Lowney  your  letters  patent 
for  the  custody  of  the  aforesaid  manor  and  advowson  and  to  annul  and 
revoke  the  said  letters  patent  issued  by  your  said  chancellor  to  the  said 
William  Wotleward  and  Agnes.  (This  do)  for  God's  sake  and  in  work  of 
charity. 

B 

.  .  .  '  of  and  concerning  the  bill  presented  to  the  said  parliament,""  fol- 
lowing this  schedule  and  ...  by  the  said  council  of  the  lord  [the  king]  .  .  . 

the  manor  of  Fyficld  which  was  put  in  the  bonds  to  render  a  fixed  sum  yearly  for  the 

custody  of  William   Woodward  and  his  estate  during  the  minority  of  the  lieir, 

wife  mentioned  below  (ibid.  275).  maintaining   him   and   providing  for   his 

'  A  citizen  of  London  and  member  of  marriage  without  disparity,  and  keeping 

the  Founders'  Company.    In  1414  Henry  up  the  property  without  waste.    Ibid. 

V    commissioned    him    to    take    copper,  '  The  entire  upper  left-hand  corner  of 

bronze,  iron,  and  other  metals  for  making  the    membrane    is   torn    away,    but    the 

guns,  to  gather  charcoal  and  saltpeter,  to  tenor  of  the    record    is    easily    followed 

bring  together  workmen  and  compel  their  nevertheless. 

services  for  the  king's  expedition.     Cal.  '°  There  is  no  record  of  such  a  bill  in 

Pat.  2  Hen.  V,  292;    Cal.  Letter-books,  K,  the  Rolls  of  Parliament,  but  from  what 

27.  follows  we  learn  that  a  counter-suit  was 

'  She  was   a  kinswoman   of  the   late  begun  by  WiUiam  and  Agnes,  who  pre- 

Thomas  Enfield.     Cal.  Pal.  8  Hen.  IV,  sented  a  petition  in  parliament  complain- 

275.  ing  that   they   had   been  removed.     By 

'  This  grant  of  Bobbingworth  is  miss-  authority  of  parliament  the  matter  was 

ing,  but  it  was  probably  similar  to  the  given  to  the  council,  which  cau.sed  the 

grant  just  mentioned  of  the  messuage  in  following  examination  to  be  made  in  the 

Fjrfield,    dated   24    Nov.    1406.      By   an  exchequer.    On  this  procedure  see  Introd., 

agreement   with    the    treasurer,   Thomas  p.  xliv. 
Neville,  who  issues  a  warrant  to  the  chan- 
cellor, Wilham  and  his  wife  are  put  under 


93  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

tem  facimus  reportacionem  videlicet  quod  Willelmus  Loueney  duodecimo 
die  lunii  [ultimo  preterito  vocatus]  personaliter  comparauit  et  de  modo 
[per]quisicionis  siue  impetracionis  literarum  patencium  domini  Regis  eidem 
Willelmo  .  .  .  [factarum  anno  re]gni  domini  Regis  nimc  decimo  de  manerio 
de  BobbjTigworth  unacum  advocacione  eeclesie  de  Bobbyngworth  .  .  . 
alios  nomine  suo  obtent'  siue  persequt'  examinatus  respondet  sic.  Sires,  I 
made  no  pursuite  for  that  patente  .  .  .  ement.  And  I  trowe  that  the 
kyng  wolde  not  haue  bede  me  and  charged  me  to  haue  pursuyd  it  bute  hit 
hadde  .  .  .  resonable.  And  there,  Sires,  I  pray  yow  if  hit  semeth  to  the 
kyng  and  his  wise  Counsaille  that  the  patente  be  laweful  and  resonable 
that  the  patente  may  stonde  in  strengthe.  And  if  it  semeth  to  the  kyng  or 
to  his  wise  Counseille  that  the  patente  be  unlaweful  and  unresonable,  I 
wolde  as  gladly  leve  it  and  all  the  benefite  ther  of  as  euere  I  was  glad  to 
take  it.  Et  Helmingus  Legat  postea  videlicet  duodecimo  die  lunii  ultimo 
preterito  vocatus  et  super  preraissis  omnibus  et  singulis  similiter  examinatus 
respondet  et  dicit  in  omnibus  prout  predictus  Willelmus  Loueney  superius 
dixit.  Et  ulterius  dicit  idem  Helmingus  quod  postquam  predicte  liters 
patentes  facte  fuerunt  prefato  Willelmo  Louenej'  et  sibi,  ipse  ad  instanciam 
et  supplicacionem  lohannis  Asshele  "  Chiualer  relaxauit  totum  statum 
suimi  quern  ipse  pretextu  dictanun  Hterarum  Regis  patencium  habuit  in 
eisdem  cuidam  lohanni  Habhale  uni  valectorum  predicti  lohannis  Asshele, 
etc.  Et  Willelmus  Wodeward  et  Agnes  uxor  ejus  simiUter  vocati  venenmt 
[personaUter]  quartodecimo  die  lunii  ultimo  preterito,  et  dicunt  quod  in 
parliamento  domini  Regis  Anno  regni  suo  prmio  apud  Westmonasterium 
edito  ordinatum  fuit  et  stabilitum  quod  [illi]  qui  extunc  peterent  de  Rege 
terras  tenementa  redditus  officia  annuitates  seu  aha  proficua  quecumque 
facerent  expressam  mencionem  in  peticionibus  suis  de  valore  rei  sic  petende 
et  eciam  de  omni  eo  quod  ipsi  antea  habuerunt  de  dono  Regis  progenitorum 
siue  predecessorum  suorum,  et  in  casu  quo  ipsi  non  facerent  talem  menci- 
onem in  peticionibus  suis  predictis  et  hoc  debite  probato  essent  tales  Utere 
Regis  patentes  inde  facte  minime  valcntes  nee  alicuius  vigoris  vel  effectus 
set  de  toto  reuocarentur  et  adnullarentur  pro  omni  tempore  futuro  in 
punicionera  illorum  qui  ita  feccrunt  in  decepcionem  Regis  tanquam  illis  qui 
non  sunt  digni  gaudere  effectu  et  beneficio  literarum  patencium  eis  in  hac 
parte  concessarum  prout  in  statuto  p[redicto]  plenius  continetur."  Et 
dicunt  quod  predictus  Willelmus  Loueney  habuit  de  dono  domini  Regis  die 
confeccionis  dictarmn  literarum  Regis  patencium  sibi  et  predicto  Holmingo 
factarum  xl  marcas  annuatim  percipiendas  de  firma  ville  de  KjTigeston  ac 
unam  marcam  annuatim  percipiendam  de  ducatu  Lancastr'  et  decern 
marcas  annuatim  percipiendas  de  Huntlredo  de  Holton  in  Comitatu  Norff.' 
Et  quod  predictus  Helmingus  similiter  habuit  dicto  die  confeccionis  litera- 
rum Regis  patencium  supradictarum  de  dono  domini  Regis  viginti  libras 
annuatun  '^  ad  Receptam  Scaccarii  percipiendas  .  .  .  annuatim  percipiend' 


LEGAT  AND  ANOTHER  V.   WODEWARD  93 

here  following,  we  report  to  the  effect  that  William  Lowney  [having  been 
called]  on  the  twelfth  day  of  [last]  June  appeared  in  person,  and  being 
examined  in  regard  to  the  method  whereby  he  acquired  or  sought  letters 
patent  of  the  lord  the  king  [granted]  to  the  said  AA'iliiain  ...  in  the  tenth 
year  of  the  reign  of  the  present  lord  the  king  concerning  the  manor  of 
Bobbingworth  together  with  the  advowson  of  the  church  of  Bobbingworth 
.  .  .  obtained  or  acquired  in  his  name,  he  answered  as  follows.  "  Sirs,  I 
made,"  etc.     [See  opposite  page.] 

Thereupon  Hehning  Legat  on  the  same  twelfth  day  of  last  June  was 
called,  and  being  sunilarly  examined  w-ith  regard  to  all  and  each  of  the 
premises  he  respontled,  saying  in  all  points  the  same  as  William  Lowney 
had  alreadj'  said.  Furthermore,  the  said  Hehning  says  that  after  the  said 
letters  patent  had  been  issued  to  the  aforesaid  William  Lowney  and 
himself,  at  the  instance  and  supplication  of  John  Ashley,"  knight,  he 
had  released  every  claim  that  he  had  in  the  said  (properties)  by  virtue 
of  the  said  letters  patent  of  the  king,  to  a  certain  John  Habhale,  one 
of  the  servants  of  the  aforesaid  John  Ashley,  etc.  And  William  Wode- 
ward  and  Agnes  his  wife  were  similarly  called,  and  came  in  person 
on  the  fourteenth  day  of  last  June,  saying  that  in  the  parliament  of 
the  lord  the  king  held  at  Westminster  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign, 
it  had  been  ordained  and  made  statute  that  whoever  should  petition 
the  king  for  lands,  tenements,  revenues,  offices,  annuities  or  any  other 
profits  whatsoever  should  make  in  their  petitions  express  mention  of 
the  value  of  the  thing  sought  for  and  also  (make  mention)  of  everything 
that  they  have  had  before  by  gift  of  the  king,  his  ancestors  or  predecessors, 
and  in  case  thej^  failed  to  mention  these  things  in  their  said  petitions,  when 
this  was  duly  proved,  such  letters  patent  as  may  have  been  issued  to  them 
should  be  of  no  value,  validity  or  effect  but  should  be  entire)}'  revoked 
and  annulled  for  all  the  future,  to  the  punishment  of  those  who  have  done 
this  to  the  deception  of  the  king  as  persons  who  are  not  worthy  to  enjoy  the 
effect  and  benefit  of  the  letters  patent  granted  to  them  in  this  part,  accord- 
ing to  what  is  gi\-en  more  fully  in  the  aforesaid  statute.'^  And  they  say 
that  the  aforesaid  William  Lowney,  on  the  day  that  the  said  letters  patent 
of  the  king  granted  to  him  and  the  aforesaid  Hehning  were  issued,  (already) 
had  by  gift  of  the  king  40  marks  a  year  derivetl  from  the  ferm  of  the  town 
of  Kingston,  also  one  mark  a  year  derived  from  the  duchy  of  Lancaster, 
and  ten  marks  a  year  derived  from  the  hundred  of  Holton  in  the  county  of 
Norfolk.  And  (they  say)  that  the  aforesaid  Hehning  Ukewise  on  the  said 
day  when  the  aforesaid  letters  patent  were  issued  by  gift  of  the  lord  king 
had  twenty  pounds  a  year  "  at  the  receipt  of  the  exchequer  received  an- 

"  or  Assheley,  known  in  1.399  as  a  king's  ous  times  was  commissioner   and  custo- 

esquire,  and  in  1401  as  a  king's  knight,  dian. 

retained  at  an  annuity  of  £100  {Cal.  Pat.  "  This  enactment  is  in  Rot.  Pari,  iii,  433. 

68,473).    In  1408  he  was  sent  in  the  king's  "  This  was  a  grant  of  5   Nov.   1399. 

service  to  Ireland  (ibid.  470),  and  at  vari-  Cal.  Pat.  1  Hen.  IV,  64. 


94  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

de  extenta  custodie  manerii  de  Cressyche  "  cum  pertinenciis  in  comitatu 
Salop'  prout  patet  de  recordo  in  quo  casu  predicte  litere  Regis  patentes 
[predictis  Willelmo  et]  Helniingo  ut  premittitur  facte  fuerunt  et  sunt 
reuocabiles  et  minus  valentes  etc.  petentes  predicti  Willelmus  Wodeward 
et  Agnes  quod  .  .  .  hentur  etc.  videlicet  quantiun  ipsi  et  eorum  uterque 
tempore  confeccionis  literarimi  Regis  patencium  supradictarum  .  .  .  Regis 
ultra  id  quod  in  predictis  Uteris  Regis  patentibus  eis  ut  premittur  factis 
continet\ir.  Et  si  ...  ad  statutum  predictum  v  .  .  .  contemptus  time 
quod  predicte  litere  Regis  patentes  de  data  ..."  Regis  huius  ...  ex  aliis 
causis  notabil'  .  .  .  annex'  content'  reuocentur  et  adnullentur.  Et  quod 
litere  Regis  patentes  de  data  v[icesimi  secimdi"]  diei  Maii  eisdem  Willelmo 
et  Agneti  de  custodia  predicta  .  .  .  et  ulterius  quod  sibi  fieri  juxta 
ordinacionem  et  adA-isamentimi  consilii  dicti  domini  Regis  auctoritate  par- 
liamenti  in  hac  parte  quod  de  iure  fuit  faciendxmi  .  .  .  nos  prefatos  Thesau- 
rariimi  et  Barones  a  prefatis  Willelmo  Loueney  et  Helmingo  a  tempore 
confeccionis  literanun  Regis  patencium  supradictarum  de  data  .  .  .  aliquid 
de  dono  Regis  aliud  quam  in  eisdem  Uteris  Regis  patentibus  continetur 
habuerunt  seu  eorum  alter  habuit  .  .  .  [ne]  potest  dedicere  quin  ipsi  tem- 
pore confeccionis  Uterarum  Regis  patencium  [supradictarum  .  .  .  de 
dono]  Regis  ultra  omnia  in  dictis  Uteris  Regis  contenta  omnes  et  singulas 
annuitates  supradictas  per  predictos  WiUeUnum  et  Agnetem  uxorem  ejus 
s[uperius]  declaratas  etc.  Quibus  quidem  examinacionibus  supradictis 
per  nos  prefatos  Thesaurarium  et  Barones  ut  premittitiir  captis  responsioni- 
busque  parcium  predictarum  supradictis  auditis  .  .  .  tabiUbus  in  pre- 
dictis Uteris  Regis  patentibus  prefatis  Helmingo  et  Willelmo  Loueney  factis 
videtur  tam  nobis  prefatis  Thesaurario  et  Baronibus  quam  lusticiariis  de 
domino  Rege  nobiscum  existentibus  predictas  Uteras  Regis  patentes  eisdem 
Willelmo  Loueney  et  Helmingo  de  data  vicesimi  diei  Maii  .  .  .  factas  ex 
causis  superius  specificatis  fore  reuocandas  aliasque  Uteras  Regis  patentes 
prefatis  Willelmo  Wodeward  et  Agneti  uxori  sue  ut  premittitur  factas 
valentes  .  .  .  dictus  Willelmus  Louenej'  per  nos  prefatos  Thesaurarium  et 
Barones  si  ipse  sciat  de  veritate  dicere  utnmi  predicte  Utere  Regis  patentes 
de  data  vicesimi  diei  Man  sibi  et  prefato  Helmingo  facte  sigillate  fuerunt 
antequam  predicte  Utere  Regis  patentes  predicto  Willelmo  Wodeward  et 
Agneti  uxori  sue  de  data  \'icesinii  secundi  diei  Mau  facte  sigillate  fuerunt 
vel  postea,  qui  dicit  super  sacramentum  suum  quod  .  .  .  intendit  in  con- 
sciencia  sua  quod  predicte  Utere  patentes  predictis  WiUeUno  Wodeward 
et  Agneti  uxori  sue  facte  et  sigiUate  fuenmt  antequam  predicte  Utere  Regis 

"  This  was  a  grant  made  in  1402,  and  "  These  letters  are  mentioned  in  Ibid, 

worth  £20  a  year.  Cat.  Pat.  4  Hen.  1\.  t>4.  12  Hen.  IV,  240;  also  in  Fine  RoU,  10  Hen. 

"  This  grant  of  20  Mav,  1402  is  in  Ibid.  IV,  m.  8. 
11  Hen.  IV,  231. 


LEGAT  AND  ANOTHER  V.   WODEWARD  94 

Dually  [from]  .  .  .  [and]  .  .  .  received  annually  from  the  income  of  the 
custoily  of  the  manor  of  Cressage  '■*  with  ajipurtcnances  in  the  countj'  of 
Shrops,  as  appears  from  the  record,  wherefore  the  aforesaid  letters  patent 
granted  to  [the  aforesaid  Wil!i;»m  and]  Ilclminp;,  as  described  above,  were 
and  are  revocable  ami  invalid,  etc.,  while  the  aforesaid  William  Wodeward 
and  Agnes  petition  that  .  .  .  that  is,  whatever  the  two  or  either  of  them 
at  the  time  the  aforesaid  letters  patent  of  the  king  were  issued  ...  of  the 
king  further  that  which  is  contained  in  the  aforesaid  letters  patent  grantetl 
to  them  as  has  been  described.    And  if  .  .  .  to  the  aforesaid  statute  .  .  . 
contempt,  then  that  the  aforesaid  letters  patent  of  the  date  [20  May,  11th 
year  '^]  of  this  king  .  .  .  notable  for  other  causes  .  .  .  contained  in  .  .  . 
annexed  shall  be  revoked  and  annulled.    And  that  the  king's  letters  patent 
dated  the  [twenty-second  ■"]  day  of  May  ...  in  regard  to  the  aforesaid 
custodj'  [granted]  to  the  said  William  and  Agnes,  and  furthermore  that 
according  to  the  ordinance  and  advice  of  the  council  of  the  said  lord  king 
by  authority  of  parliament  there  should  be  done  for  them  what  rightfully 
ought  to  have  been  done  ...  us  the  aforesaid  treasurer  and  barons  by 
the  aforesaid  William  Lowney  and  Helming  from  the  time  that  the  afore- 
said letters  patent  of  the  king  dated  .  .  .  were  made  .  .  .  the  two  of 
them  had  or  one  of  them  had  something  by  gift  of  the  king  other  than  what 
is  contained  in  the  said  letters  patent  of  the  king  .  .  .  [nor]  can  it  be  denied 
that  at  the  time  the  aforesaid  letters  patent  were  granted  .  .  .  they  [were 
receiving  by  gift]  of  the  king  besides  all  the  things  described  in  the  said 
letters  of  the  king  and  each  of  the  aforesaid  annuities,  as  declared  above 
by  the  aforesaid  William  and  Agnes  his  wife,  etc.    The  aforesaid  examina- 
tions then  having  been  conducted  by  us,  the  aforesaid  treasurer  and  barons, 
as  has  been  previously  described,  and  the  responses  of  the  aforesaid  parties 
having  been  heard  ...  in  the  aforesaid  letters  patent  of  the  king  granted 
to  the  aforesaid  Hehuing  and  William  Lowney,  it  seems  right  to  us  the 
aforesaid  treasurer  and  barons  as  well  as  the  justices  of  the  lord  the  king 
remaining  with  us  that  the  aforesaid  letters  patent  of  the  king  granted  to 
the  said  William  Lowney  and  Helming  dated  the  twentieth  of  May  .  .  . 
■for  the  causes  specified  above  should  be  revoked  and  that  other  valid 
letters  patent  of  the  king  should  be  granted  to  the  aforesaid  William  Wode- 
ward and  Agnes  his  wife,  as  has  been  previously  described,  .  .  .  [and 
that]  the  said  Wilham  Lowney  [having  been  asked]  by  us  the  aforesaid 
treasurer  and  barons  whether  he  can  truly  tell  whether  the  aforesaid  letters 
patent  of  the  king  dated  the  twentieth  day  of  May  that  were  granted  to 
him  and  the  aforesaid  Helming  were  sealed  before  the  aforesaid  letters 
patent  granted  to  the  aforesaid  William  Wodeward  and  Agnes  his  wife, 
and  dated  the  twenty-second  day  of  May  had  been  sealed  or  afterwanis; 
and  he  says  upon  his  oath  that  ...  he  understands  in  his  conscience  that 
the  aforesaid  letters  patent  granted  to  William  Wodew^ard  and  Agnes  his 
wife  were  sealed  before  the  aforesaid  letters  patent  granted  to  himself  and 


95  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

patentes  sibi  et  predicto  Helmingo  facte  sigillate  fuerunt.  Que  omnia 
et  singula  excellenti  consilio  et  discrete  domini  Regis  certificamus  per 
presentes." 

WYTHUM  V.  MEN  OF  KAMPEN ' 

1418        A  treshonorable  et  tressage  counseille  le  Roi  nostre  souerein  seignur. 

Supplie  humblement  Hugh  de  Wythum  ^  de  Boston  qe  come  ore  tarde 
un  sa  nief  appelle  Gabriell  es  parties  de  Pruys  esteant  y  estoit  arestuz  saunz 
cause  resonable  al  suite  de  certeins  gentz  del  ville  de  Campe  et  y  soubtz  arest 
detenuz  par  sept  scmaignes  et  pluj-s  tanqe  les  attournes  et  deputees  du  dit 
suppliant  en  le  dit  nief  esteantz  pur  aver  deliuerance  de  la  dit  nief  firent 
fyn  oue  les  ditz  gentz  de  Campe  a  lour  volunte  par  ount  le  dit  suppliant  es 
mys  as  costages  et  damages  pluj^s  qe  de  CCC  li.  qar  si  le  dit  arest  nust  estee 
sa  dit  nief  ust  venuz  a  Boston  oue  la  grace  de  Dieu  deuant  le  fest  de  Seint 
Petre  ad  %dncle  ^  lou  puis  tempeste  surdyst  par  quel  sa  dit  nief  en  venant 
deuers  la  dit  ville  de  Boston  fuit  gette  sur  un  Rokke  en  la  paiis  de  Norway 
et  y  debrusee.  Et  ore  Grote  Court  et  John  Rode  de  la  dite  ville  de  Campe 
oue  deux  lour  niefs  soimt  venuz  au  dit  \alle  de  Boston.  Qe  please  a  voz 
tressagez  discrecions  de  graunter  un  brief  as  bailliefs  de  Boston  suisditz 
pour  arester  les  ditz  deux  niefs  de  Campe  et  eux  ensy  arestez  detenir  tanqe 
pleine  restitucion  soit  fait  a  dit  supphant  des  costages  et  damages  suisditz 
solonqe  ceo  qe  bon  foj'  et  resoim  demandent  en  celle  partie  pour  dieu  et  en 
oeure  de  charite. 

[Endorsed:  — ]  Concordatum  per  dominiun  Cancellarium  ••  quinto 
decimo  die  Nouembris  anno  sixto.^ 

Le  quinzisme  iour  de  Novembre  Ian,  etc.,  sisme.  Accordez  est  par  le 
conseil  qe  couunission  desouz  le  grant  seel  soit  adressee  a  Robert  Tirwyt ' 
et  William  Ludyngton,'  Justices,  pur  faire  comparer  deuant  eux  les  parties 
deinz  especifiees  et  qe  la  matere  de  ceste  peticion  par  eux  bien  et  duement 
examinee  facent  sur  ce  droit  as  dites  parties,  en  facent  empres  relacion  au 
conseil  du  Roy  de  ce  quils  averont  fait  en  celle  partie.' 

"  The    conclusion    of    the    matter    is  Privy  Seal  (Exch.  T.  H.),  file  32,  15  Nov., 

learned   from   the   letters   patent,   dated  6  Hen.  V. 

16  Oct.   1410,  which    recite  how  at   the  '  Wythom  or  Witham,  a  name  eminent 

suit  of  A\'illiam  Wodeward  and  Apncs  his  in  the  history  of  Boston  for  two  centuries, 

wife  the  question  had  been  examined  be-  Hugh  the  father  of  the  present  petitioner 

fore  the  council,  which  after  dehberation  was  a  member  of  the  Corpus  Christi  Gild 

with  the  justices  and  others  learned  in  the  and  alderman  in   1404  and   1410.     The 

law   gave   judgment   that   the  letters   of  present  Hugh  came  to  the  same  honour  in 

20   May   be   revoked   and   William   and  1414.    It  was  perhaps  a  son  of  the  latter 

Agnes  lie  restored  to  possession.    Cal.  Pal.  who  is  mentioned  as  Hugh  son  of  Hugh 

12  Hen.  IV,  240.  junior  in  the  same  connection  in  1430.    In 

'  The  original  petition  is  in  Ancient  Pe-  1453  there  was  one  Sir  Hugh,  etc.   (P. 

tilions,  no.  S107.    There  is  a  copy  contain-  Thompson,  Hist,  of  BosUm  [1850],  pp.  118, 

ing  a  few  extended  phrases  in  Council  and  241).    The  petitioner  was  a  commissioner 


WYTHUM   V.  MEN   OF   KAMPEN  95 

the  aforesaid  Helming  had  been  sealed.  All  these  things  and  each  of  them 
we  certify  to  the  excellent  and  discreet  council  of  the  lord  the  king  by  the 
present  (writing)." 

WYTHUM  V.  MEN  OF  KAMPEN  > 

1418       To  the  very  honourable  and  very  sage  council  of  the  king  our  sovereign 
lord. 

Huniblj'  beseecheth  Hugh  of  Wythum  ^  of  Boston  that  whereas  a  ship 
of  his  named  Gabriel  while  lying  in  parts  of  Prussia  was  there  arrested 
without  reasonable  cause  at  the  suit  of  certain  men  of  the  town  of  Kam- 
pen  and  was  there  detained  under  arrest  for  more  than  seven  weeks,  until 
the  attornej's  and  deputies  of  the  said  suppliant  who  were  with  the  said 
ship,  in  order  to  have  delivorance  of  the  said  ship,  made  fine  with  the  said 
men  of  Kampen  at  their  will,  whereby  the  said  suppliant  has  been  put  to 
costs  and  damages  of  more  than  £300;  for  if  the  said  arrest  had  not  oc- 
curred his  said  ship  would  have  come  with  The  Grace  of  God  to  Boston  be- 
fore the  feast  of  St.  Peter  ad  vincula,'  whereas  a  tempest  arose  by  which 
his  said  ship  while  coming  toward  the  town  of  Boston  was  thro^vTi  upon  a 
rock  on  the  coast  of  Norway  and  there  shattered.  And  now  Grote  Court 
and  John  Rode  of  the  said  town  of  Kampen  with  their  two  ships  have  come 
.  to  the  said  town  of  Boston.  May  it  please  your  very  sage  discretions  to 
grant  a  writ  to  the  bailiffs  of  Boston  aforesaid  to  arrest  the  said  two  ships 
of  Kampen  and  to  detain  them  under  arrest  until  full  restitution  be  made 
to  the  said  suppliant  for  the  aforesaid  costs  and  damages,  according  to 
what  good  faith  and  reason  demand,  for  God  and  in  way  of  charity. 

[Endorsed: — ]  Agreed  by  the  lord  chancellor,^  15  November,  in  the 
sixth  year.^ 

The  fifteenth  daj'  of  November,  year,  etc.,  sixth.  It  is  agreed  by  the 
council  that  a  commission  under  the  great  seal  should  be  addressed  to 
Robert  Tirwyt^  and  William  Ludjoigton,''  justices,  to  have  the  parties 
herein  specified  appear  before  them  and  that  having  well  and  duly  ex- 
amined the  matter  contained  in  this  petition  they  shall  thereupon  do  justice 
to  the  said  parties,  making  express  relation  to  the  king's  council  of  what 
they  shall  have  done  in  this  case.* 

de  xixiliis  el  fossati^  in  1418,  and  a  com-  sioner  of  array  in  Lincolnshire  in  1419, 

missioner  to  raise  a  loan  in  Lincolnshire  in  commissioner  of  oyer  and  terminer,  etc. 

1419  iCal.  Pat.  200,  252).  Cal.  Pal.  Rolls. 

'  1  August.  '  Ludington    or    Lodington,    attorney 

*  Thomas  Langley,  1417-24.  general  in  1399,  Serjeant  at  law  in  1410, 

'  This    endorsement    is    not    in    the  king's  Serjeant  at  law  in  1413,  justice  of 

original  petition.  common  pleas  in  141.5,  justice  of  the  peace 

'  Tinvhit  or  Thirwit,  serjeant  at  law  in  Cumberland,  Westmoreland,  Yorkshire, 

in  1399,  justice  of  common  pleas  and  of  and   Lincolnshire,   commissioner   of  oyer 

the  king's  bench  in  1409,  justice  of  the  and  terminer,  etc.    Ibid. 

peace  in  Westmoreland,  Yorkshire,  North-  •  This  commission  was  issued  on  the 

umberland,    and    Lincolnshire,    commis-  same  day.    Cal.  Pal.  6  Hen.  V,  205. 


96  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

DF\-AL  V.  C0UXTES3  OF  ARUXDEL ' 

1421        Au  Roy  nostre  souuerain  seigniour. 

Supplient  humblement  Guille  du  val,  vostre  homme  liiige,  \Tay  subgiet 
et  obbej'ssant  de  vostre  chitte  de  Rouen  marchant,  et  Ernoult  Claissoun 
[maitre  dune  nauire  appele  la  Marie  de]  Cingnet  de  Selissay  -  en  Selande  et 
Comme  voz  dix  suppliens  priient  a  vostre  treshaulte  segneurie  et  majeste 
royal  dauoir  restitucion  de  cer[teins  ■s'ins  qi  furent  enportes  a  Briscampton  ' 
par]  fortune  de  temps  en  la  compte  de  Susses,  lesquieulx  vins  lesdix  supplians 
pourquaichent  de  jour  en  jour  amon  grant  f[re]s  et  despens  des  qu[els  \Tns 
furent ]enporte  dedens  la  seugneurie  de  monssieur  larcheuesque  de  Quantor- 
byere  viat  pippes  audit  lieu,  et  xxx\t  pippes  furent  [enporte,  dedens  la] 
seignourj-e  de  madame  la  Contesse  Darondel,*  et  desquelles  ^•int  pippes 
qui  furent  menees  et  en  portees  en  la  segneurie  dudit  ar[cheuesque  furent 
les  dix]  supplians  comptentes  des  dites  xx  pippes,  et  aussy  fui'ent  conptentes 
de  dix  pippes  des  xxxs-i  pippez  dessusditz  qui  fur[ent]  m[enees  dedens  la 
seigneurie]  de  la  dite  Comptesse.  Ainssy  demeure  de  reste  pour  les  dix 
supplians  xx\-i  pippes  de  \Tn  des  xxx\-i  dessusdites  lesquellez  xxvi  pippes 
.  .  .  dethient  et  se  fond  de  un  on  de  la  dite  dame  et  veult  dethenir  lesdix 
A-ins  a  grant  tort  et  dommaige  des  dix  supplians.  Et  sy  auoient  eu  [lettres] 
de  vostre  haulte  majeste  royal  adrechant  a  Richard  Wathehei-st  et  Waultier 
Urry  *  et  sonen  hommes,  officers  de  la  dite  Contesse,  pour  [deliuerer]  lour  dix 
\Tns  et  yceulx  nont  voullu  obbeir  ne  octhemperer,  et  sur  ce  lesdix  supplians 
requerent  auoir  une  commission  du  Roy  [pour  enquirer  touchant]  lesdis 
\Tns  et  fres  et  dommages  qU  yont  fais  en  pourquaschant  la  dite  marchandise 
adrechant  a  monssieur  de  Pony[nges  ^  ch'r  Johan]  Xelond  ^  Jennequin 
Halles '  le  Joun  devenir '  a  Loundres  par  deuant  Justice  aesster  adroit 
selonc  le  cas  alia  reste  desdLx  supplians.  Et  [le  dit  Guille]  et  lesdix  supplians 
prierent  Dieu  pour  vous  et  pour  vostre  tresnoble  sane  et  lingnage. 

[Endorsed:  — ]  Le  xix  jour  de  Feuerer  Ian  etc.  oj-tisme,  par  le  conseil 
du  Roj'  nostre  souerein  seignur,  accordez  est  qe  desouz  le  grant  seal  de 
nostre  dit  souerein  seignur  soient  faites  lettres  de  commission  adressees  au 
Sire  de  Ponj-ngges  et  as  autres  cy  dedeinz  nommez  denquere  de  les  biens  et 

'  Ancient  Petitions,  no.  8745.  The  out  issue,  left  it  with  other  parts  of  the 
membrane  is  badly  damaged.  The  spaces  barony  to  the  Countess  Beatrice,  men- 
indicated  by  brackets  have  been  filled  in  tioned  below  (T.  W.  Horsfield,  Hist,  of 
by  comparison  with  the  entry  in  the  fo/CT!/  Sussex  [1835],  i,  110),  who  retained  pos- 
RoU,  8  Hen.  V,  m.,  2  d.  The  petition,  it  session  of  it  to  the  end  of  her  life  (Cal. 
will  be  noticed,  was  composed  by  a  for-  Inq.,  p.  m.,  iv,  197-8).  (2)  Brigbton- 
eigner,  and  contains  verbsd  forms  strange  Michelhara,  belonging  to  the  priory  of 
to  England.  Michaelham  (Horsfield,  i,  112).  (3) 
'  =  Zierikzee.  Brighton-.\tlingworth,  belonging  to  the 
*  The  parish  of  Brighton  contained  monks  of  Lewes.  Just  what  claims  the 
three  lordships:  (1)  Brighton-Lewes,  which  archbishop  of  Canterbury  had,  has  not 
came  to  the  .\rundels  from  the  Warren  been  shown, 
estates  in  1347.    The  late  earl,  dj-ing  with-  «  Beatrice,  illegitimate  daughter  of  the 


DUVAL  V.   COUNTESS  OF  ARUNDEL  96 

DIR'AL  V.  COUNTESS  OF  ARUNDEL ' 

1421        To  the  king  our  sovoroipii  lord. 

Himibly  bcsecchcth  William  Duval,  your  liege  man,  true  and  obedient 
subject  of  your  city  of  Rouen,  merchant,  and  Arnold  Claisson,  [master 
of  a  ship  called  La  Marie  de]  Cygnet  of  Selissay-  in  Zealand.  And  since 
your  said  suppliants  pray  to  your  very  exalted  lordship  and  royal  majesty 
that  they  may  have  restitution  of  certain  wines  which  were  brought  into 
Brighton  '  by  fortune  of  time  in  the  county  of  Sussex,  which  wines  the 
said  suppliants  sue  for  from  day  to  day  to  my  great  cost  and  exjjense;  of 
which  wines  there  were  brought  within  the  lordship  of  my  lord  the  arch- 
bishop of  Canter})ury  20  pipes  at  the  aforesaid  place,  and  36  pipes  within 
the  lordship  of  the  countess  of  Arundel,''  and  of  the  20  pipes  which  were 
taken  and  brought  within  the  lordship  of  the  said  ar[chbishop  the  said] 
suppliants  have  been  satisfied  for  the  said  20  pipes,  and  also  for  ten 
of  the  aforesaid  3(3  pipes  which  were  [taken  within  the  lordship]  of  the  said 
countess.  Thus  there  remains  wanting  to  the  said  suppliants  26  pipes  of 
wine  out  of  the  aforesaid  36,  which  26  pipes  .  .  .  detains  and  defends  him- 
self by  the  name  of  the  said  lady,  who  means  to  detain  the  said  wines  to  the 
great  wrong  and  damage  of  the  said  suppliants.  And  whereas  they  have  had 
[letters]  of  your  high  royal  majesty  addressed  to  Richard  Watheherst  and 
AValter  Urrj' '  and  their  men,  officers  of  the  said  countess,  to  [deliver]  their 
said  wines,  and  these  have  not  been  willing  to  obey  or  yield;  whereupon  the 
said  suppliants  request  to  have  a  commission  of  the  king  [to  inquire  con- 
cerning] the  said  wines  and  costs  and  damages  that  they  have  incurred  in 
suing  for  the  said  merchandise,  addressed  to  the  lord  of  Pony[ngs,*  knight, 
John]  Nclond,'  Jennequin  Halles  ^  the  younger,  (to  require  the  men)  to 
come  to  London  before  the  coui't  to  stand  trial  according  to  the  case,  to 
the  relief  of  the  said  suppUants.  And  the  said  William  and  the  said  sup- 
pliants will  pray  God  for  you  and  for  your  very  noble  blood  and  lineage. 

[Endorsed: — ]  On  the  19th  day  of  Febniary,  eighth  j'ear,  etc.,  it  is 
agreed  by  the  council  of  our  sovereign  lord  the  king  that  there  should  be 
issued  under  the  great  seal  of  our  said  sovereign  lord  letters  of  commission 
addressed  to  the  lord  of  Ponyngcs  and  the  others  named  herein  to  enquire 

king  of  Portugal  and  widow  of  Thomas  and  Henry  VI,  serving  also  as  justice  of 

Fitzalan    who   died    in    1415.      Dugdale,  the  peace  and  commissioner  in  the  county 

Baronage,  i,  321.  until  he  W'as  slain  in  1446  (Dugdale,  ii, 

»  Mentioned    as    agent    of    the    arch-  135). 
bishop  and  the  countess,  also  a  conimis-  '  or  Neland,   justice  of  the  peace  in 

sioner  in  1422  to  inquire  into  false  weights.  Sussex,  commissioner  of  oyer  and  terminer, 

Cal.  Pat.  Rolh,  329,  423.  etc. 

«  Robert  Poynings,  fifth  and  last  earl  '  John   Halle,   probably  son   of  John 

of  a  family  named  from  a  manor  in  the  Halle   the   elder,   sheriff   of   Surrey    and 

downs  which  had  been  held  l)y  them  from  Sussex  in  1420.    Both  were  active  in  the 

the  time  of  Henry  II  (Horsfield,  i,  175).  affairs  of  the  county. 
He  took  part  in  all  the  wars  of  Henry  V  '  For /aire  devenir. 


97  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

marchandises  dount  mencion  est  faite  en  cestes  deux  peticions  annexez,  et 
as  mains  de  qi  ou  queux  tieux  biens  et  marchandises  sont  deuenuz,  et  de 
faire  et  ordenner  qe  diceux  due  restitucion  soit  faite  a  ceux  as  queux  il  ap- 
partient,  comme  reson  demande,  et  qe  les  ditz  commissioners  facent  dis- 
tinctement  et  apertement  certifier  de  souz  lour  sealx  au  susdit  conseil  ce 
quils  aueront  fait  en  celle  partie.'" 

DANVERS  V.  BROKET' 

1433  Memorandum  quod  vicesimo  die  lunii  anno  regni  Regis  Henrici  sexti 
post  conquestum  undecimo  quidam  Robertus  Danvers-  personaliter  op- 
tulit  [se  consiliodomini  Regis  in]  camera  stellata  in  palacio  Westm'et  ibidem 
publice  ^  exposuit  ^  et  declaravit  quod  circiter  duos  annos  iam  elapsos 
ipse  primo  retentus  fuit  ad  essendum  de  consilio  cuiusdam  Thome  SeLntcleer 
et  feoffatonmi  suorum  in  hiis  que  ad  legem  pertinent  de  et  super  jure  et 
titulo  maneriorimi  de  Barton  Sancti  Johannis  et  Staunton  Sancti  Johannis  ^ 
in  comitatu  Oxon'.  Et  pro  eo  quod  quedam  inquisicio  coram  Radulfo 
SeintowajTi,*  nuper  escaetore  domini  Edwardi,  nuper  Regis  Anglie  tercii 
a  conquestu,  in  comitatu  Surr'  anno  regni  sui  [vic]esimo  septimo  post 
mortem  Rogeri  de  Sancto  Johanne '  capta  et  in  cancellaria  sua  retornata 
probabilis  et  manifesta  iuris  et  tituli  predictoriun  euidencia  exist[ebat]  pre- 
dictus  Robertus  ut  unus  de  consilio  predict!  Thome  et  feoflfatorum  pre- 
dictorum  sequebatur  ad  concellariam  predicti  domini  Regis  nunc  pro  tenore 
ejusdem  inquisicionis  inter  aUa  sub  magno  sigillo  domini  Regis  secundum 
formam  juris  exemplificando.  Ac  postmodmn  predictus  dominus  Rex  nunc 
tenorem  predictum  per  Utteras  suas  patentes  quarimi  datiun  est  apud  West- 
monasterium  terciodecimo  die  Julii  anno  regni  sui  nono  inter  alia  duxit 
exeraplificari.  In  quibus  quidem  inquisieione  et  exemplificacione  adtunc 
inter  alia  continebatur  ista  clausula:  Et  quod  Petrus  de  Sancto  Johanne 

">  The  commission  was  issued  on  the  but  at  the  time  of  this  case  he  was  not  as 

same  day.     It  required  also  an  inquiry  yet  in  the  employment  of  the  king.     In 

into  the  complaint  of  Nicholas  GosseljTi  1436  he  was  justice  of  the  peace  in  0.\ford- 

another  merchant  of  Rouen  who  had  lost  shire,  and  afterwards  served  frequently  as 

6  pipes  of  wine  in  the  same  way.     Cal.  commissioner  and  justice  of  assize.     In 

Pat.  8  Hen.  V,  329.  1442  he  was  elected  recorder  of  London 

'  Council  and  Privy  Seal  (Exch.  T.  R.),  (Cal.  Letter-books,  K,  273);  in  1443  he  was 
file  54.  The  record  is  exemplified  at  length  a  Serjeant  at  law;  in  1444  a  king's  ser- 
in Close  Roll,  11  Hen.  IV,  m.  4d.,  which  jeant;  in  14.50  a  justice  of  common  pleas 
has  been  used  in  determining  and  supply-  (Cal.  Pal.  Rolls). 

ing  some  of  the  words.     The  case  was  '  Contrary   to    a    current    belief,    the 

known  to  Coke  (Fourth  Inst.  ch.  V),  and  proceedings  of  the  council  were  not  al- 

was  printed  in  The  King's  Council  (p.  525)  ways,   perhaps  not   usually,   secret   (The 

without  translation  or  annotation.  King's  Council,  p.  105).     The  custom  of 

'  Eldest  son  of  John  Danvers  of  Co-  public  sessions  was  carried  over  into  the 

thorp,   of   a  well    established    family  in  modern    court   of   star   chamber    (E.    P. 

Berkshire    and    Oxfordshire,    trained    at  Chcyney,  Hist,  of  Eng.  from  the  Armada, 

Lincoln's  Inn,  of  which  he  became  one  of  i,  87). 

the  governors  in  1428.    From  this  time  on  •  No  petition  evidently  was  required, 

he  was  active  as  an  attorney  and  litigant,  See  Introd.,  p.  xxxvi. 


DANVERS    V.  BROKET  97 

concerning  the  goods  and  merchandise  mentioned  in  these  two  petitions 
anncxetl,  and  into  whose  liands  such  goods  anil  merchandise  have  fallen, 
and  to  do  and  ordain  that  such  due  restitution  shall  be  made  to  whom  it 
belongs  as  reason  demands,  and  that  the  said  commissioners  shall  cause 
distinctly  and  openlj-  to  be  certified  to  the  aforesaid  council  under  their 
seals  whatever  they  shall  have  done  in  this  matter.'" 

DANVERS  V.  BROKET ' 

1433  Be  it  remembered  that  on  the  20th  day  of  June  in  the  11th  year  of  King 
Henrj'  VI  Robert  Danvers  ^  presented  himself  in  person  before  the  council 
of  the  lord  the  king  in  the  Star  Chamber  in  the  Palace  at  Westminster,  and 
there  made  public '  exposition,''  declaring  that  about  two  years  previ- 
ously he  had  been  retained  as  counsel  of  one  Thomas  Sinclair  and  his 
feoffees  in  law  touching  and  concerning  the  right  and  title  to  the  manors 
of  Barton  St.  John's  and  Stanton  St.  Jolm's  ■''  in  the  county  of  Oxford. 
And  whereas  a  certain  inquisition  that  was  taken  before  Ralph  SeintowajTi ' 
once  escheator  in  the  county  of  Sm-rey  for  Edward  III,  formerlj'  king  of 
England,  in  the  twenty -seventh  year  of  his  reign,  after  the  death  of  Roger 
St.  John,'  and  this  inquisition  having  been  returned  to  the  chancery  re- 
mained as  the  probable  and  manifest  evidence  of  the  aforesaid  right  and 
title,  the  aforesaid  Robert  as  counsel  of  the  aforesaid  Thomas  and  the 
aforesaid  feoffees  sued  in  the  chancery  of  the  aforesaid  lord  the  present 
king  among  other  things  for  an  exempUfication  of  the  tenor  of  the  same 
inquisition  under  the  great  seal  in  due  form.  And  afterwards  the  aforesaid 
lord  the  present  king  by  his  letters  patent  dated  at  Westminster  the  13th 
day  of  July  in  the  9th  year  of  his  reign,  among  other  things,  had  the  afore- 
said tenor  exemplified.  In  this  inquisition  and  exemplification,  among 
other  things,  there  was  then  contained  the  following  clause:  "  And  because 
Peter  St.  John  is  a  cousin  and  the  nearest  heir  of  the  aforesaid  Roger,  being 

'  These  manors  were  part  of  the  estat«  probably  in  these  transactions  that  Dan- 

of  Roger  St.  John,  mentioned  below  in  vers  was  engaged  as  an  attorney. 
27  Ed.  III.    They  were  transferred  several  '  or  St.  Owen,  sheriff  of  Surrey  and 

times  before  they  are  found  in  the  posses-  Sussex   in   1351,  and  escheator  1353-54. 

sion  of  PhUip  Sinclair,  or  St.  Clare,  who  Cal.  CI.  Rolh. 

held  by  knight  service  and  died  in  9  Hen.  '  Son  of  John  St.  John,  of  a  family 
IV  {Cal.  Inq.,  p.  m.,  iii,  320).  His  elder  known  from  the  time  of  Henry  III  in  con- 
son  John,  a  minor  and  ward  of  the  king,  nection  with  the  manor  of  Lagham  in 
died  in  the  reign  of  Henry  V,  leaving  the  Surrey.  Barton  and  Stanton  in  Oxford- 
lands  to  a  younger  Ijrother  the  above  shire  were  acquired  in  the  reign  of  Ed- 
named  Thomas,  also  a  minor  at  the  time  ward  I  (O.  Manning,  Hist,  of  Surrey  [1809], 
and  ward  of  the  king.  This  Tliomas  in  ii,  324).  Great  Barton  was  released  by  a 
1424  paid  a  fine  of  £200  for  marrying  with-  deed  in  1352  {Cal.  CI.  27  Ed.  Ill,  507). 
out  the  king's  license  {Cal.  Pat.  2  Hen.  VI,  This  Roger  died  in  1353  leaving  the  resi- 
180),  and  in  1426  was  required  to  pay  an-  due  of  his  estate,  including  Lagham  and 
other  fine  of  £60  for  making  enfeoffments  Walkamsted  in  Surrey,  to  Peter  his  cousin 
in  the  manors  of  Barton  St.  John's  and  and  heir  {Cal.  Inq.,  -p.  m.,  ii,  181),  whose 
Stanton  St.  John's  and  elsewhere  without  title  was  at  this  late  day  brought  into 
a  license  (ibid.  4  Hen.  VI,  352).    It  was  question. 


98  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

est  consanguineus  et  heres  predict!  Rogeri  propinqnior  et  etatis  xl  annorum 
et  amplius,  que  quidem  clausula  in  omnibus  de  litteratura  clara  et  unifornai 
adtunc  extitit  et  non  \'iciosa  nee  in  aliquo  rasa  aut  suspecta,  ut  idem  Rober- 
tas coram  consilio  predicto  publice  exposuit  et  declarauit.  Dicebat  insuper 
idem  Robertu's  quod  predictus  numerus  xl  in  predicta  clausula  contentus 
quamdiu  non  rasus  nee  viciosus,  ut  predictum  est,  extitit  in  magnam  euiden- 
ciam  eneruacionis  et  adnullacionis  pretensi  iuris  et  tituli  quorundam 
Johannis  Lydeyard  *  et  Clemencie  uxoris  ejus  de  et  in  maneriis  predictis 
manifeste  redundauit,  in  qua  quidem  clausula  predictus  numerus  xl  diu 
citra  confeccionem  ejusdem  exemplificacionis  de  nouo  rasus  et  iterum  cum 
nouo  incausto  renouatus  extitit  et  rescriptus,  prout  in  dicta  inquisicione 
satis  aperte  eminet  et  apparet.'  De  quibus  quidem  rasura  et  rescripcione 
predictus  Robertus  in  diuersis  regni  partibus  per  nonnullos  obloquentes 
multipliciter  extitit  diffamatus  in  ipsius  Roberti  scandalum,  et  predicti 
Thome  et  feoffatorum  suorum  predictorum  juris  et  tituli  de  et  in  maneriis 
predictis  prejudicium  non  modicum  et  grauamen.  Super  quibus  predictus 
Robertus  predictam  exemplificationem  coram  dicto  consilio  publice  demon- 
strans  himiiliter  supplicauit  tam  pro  domino  Rege  quam  pro  restitucione 
fame  sue  predicte  quod  Thomas  Smyth,'"  clericus,  qui  habet  custodiam 
dicte  inquisicionis  necnon  certorum  recordorum  cancellarie  domini  Regis 
apud  Turrim  London'  existencimn  sub  Johanne  Frank,"  clerico  custode 
rotulorum  cancellarie  ejusdem  domini  Regis,  et  Robertus  PolejTi,  seruiens 
ejusdem  Thome  Smyth,  sint  vocati  ad  dictum  consilium  ad  recognoscendum 
quid  nouerint  vel  dicere  sciuerint  de  rasura  predicta.  Qui  quidem  Thomas 
et  Robertus  die  et  loco  predictis  coram  dicto  consiUo  comparentes  et  pre- 
dictam inquisicionem  ut  predictum  est  rasam  secum  portantes,  \-isisque  eis 
insimul  predictis  inquisicione  et  exemplificacione,  fide  qua  domino  Rege 
tenebantur  matura  deUberacione  dixerunt  et  recognouerunt  quod  predictus 
Robertus  PolejTi  scripsit  eandem  exemplificacioncm,  et  postea  dictus 
Thomas  Smyth  et  Robertus  PolejTi  simul  examinaucrunt  predictas  in- 
quisicionem et  exemplificacioncm,  in  qua  quidem  examinacione  adtunc  in 
loco  dicte  rasure  reperierunt  solomodo  Lstas  htteras  x  et  1  simul  et  antiquiter 
scriptas  pro  isto  numero  quadraginta  non  rasas  suspectas  nee  in  aliquo 
viciosas,  prout  in  dicta  exemplificacione  scribitur  et  testatur.  Verump- 
tamen  pro  eo  quod  hec  rasura  falso  et  nisi  tarde,  ut  apparet,  extitit  per- 
petrata  dicunt  quod  quidam  Willebnus  Broket  mediacione  eujusdam 
Gerardi  de  la  Hay  '^  circiter  festum  Sancte  Katherine  \'irginis  "  ultimo 

'  The  claim  of  John  Lydeyard  has  not  blotting.      An    endorsement    written    in 

been  traced.  modern  times  reads:    De  Rasura  mimeri 

'  The  original  document  (Inquisitiones  XL  infra  script,  vide  Manorand'  in  Dorso 

post  mortem,  27  Ed.  Ill,  file  121,  no.  27)  Claus.  de  anno  h.  6.  m.  4  d.    The  Statute 

shows  the  rasure  just  as  is  here  described.  8  Ric.  II,  c.  4  applied  to  offences  of  this 

The   rasure   was   roughly   made,   leaving  kind.    See  Introd.,  p.  cviii. 

traces  of  the  former  writing,   while   the  '"  Keeper  of  the  records  in  the  Tower; 

later  writing  is  blacker  than  the  original,  a  clerk  in  the  chancery  receiving  attorneys, 

more  heavily  drawn  and  has  spread  by  Cat.  Pat.  12  Hen.  VI,  309,  332,  etc. 


DANVERS  V.  BROKET  98 

more  tliaii  fortj'  years  of  age."  This  clause  in  every  way  was  then  of  a 
clear  and  uniform  writing,  not  damaged  or  rased  in  any  place  or  suspected, 
as  the  said  Robert  has  publicly  explained  and  declared  before  the  aforesaid 
council.  Moreover  the  same  Robert  said  that  the  aforesaid  number  XL 
occurring  in  the  aforesaid  clause,  so  long  as  it  was  not  rased  or  damaged,  as 
has  been  saiil,  manifestly  afforded  strong  evidence  of  the  weakness  and 
annulment  of  the  alleged  right  and  title  of  a  certain  John  Lydeyard '  and 
Clcmence  his  wife  to  and  in  the  aforesaid  manors,  for  in  this  clause  the 
number  XL,  long  after  the  same  exemplification  was  made,  has  been  re- 
cently rased  and  renewed  with  fresh  ink  and  has  been  written  over,  as 
stands  out  very  prominentlj'  and  is  clearly  apparent  in  the  said  inquisition.' 
By  reason  of  this  rasin-e  and  rewriting  the  aforesaid  Robert  has  been  greatly 
defamed  by  persons  in  many  parts  of  the  realm  who  blame  him,  to  the 
great  shame  of  the  said  Robert  and  to  the  enormous  prejudice  and  hard- 
ship of  the  aforesaid  Thomas  and  his  aforesaid  feoffees  in  respect  of  the 
right  and  title  to  and  in  the  aforesaitl  manors.  Furthermore  the  aforesaid 
Robert  publicly  exhibiting  the  aforesaid  exemplification  before  the  said 
council  humbly  besought  in  behalf  of  the  king  as  well  as  for  the  restoration 
of  his  own  good  name  that  Thomas  Smyth,'"  clerk,  who  has  custody  of  the 
said  inquisition  as  well  as  of  certain  records  of  the  lord  the  king's  chancery 
remaining  in  the  Tower  of  London,  under  John  Frank,"  clerk,  keeper  of  the 
rolls  of  the  chancery  of  the  said  lord  the  king,  and  Rol^ert  Polej-n,  servant 
of  the  same  Thomas  Smyth,  should  be  called  before  the  said  council  to 
make  recognition  of  what  they  know  or  can  say  concerning  the  aforesaid 
rasure.  The  same  Thomas  and  Robert  at  the  aforesaid  time  and  place 
appeared  before  the  said  council,  bringing  the  aforesaid  inquisition  that 
had  been  rased  as  already  described,  and  having  viewed  the  aforesaid  in- 
quisition at  the  same  time  with  the  aforesaid  exemplification,  upon  the 
faith  by  which  they  are  bound  to  the  lord  the  king,  after  mature  delibera- 
tion they  declared  and  recognised  that  the  aforesaid  Robert  Polej'n  wrote 
the  said  exemplification.  Afterward  the  said  Thomas  Smyth  and  Robert 
Polej'n  examined  the  aforesaid  inquisition  together  with  the  said  exempli- 
fication, whereby  they  then  discovered  that  in  the  place  of  the  said  rasure 
only  these  letters  x  and  I  had  been  written  simultaneously  and  originally 
for  the  number  forty,  which  had  not  been  rased,  suspected  or  in  any  way 
impaired,  just  as  is  written  and  attested  in  the  said  exemplification.  Never- 
theless because  this  rasure  has  been  perpetrated  falsely  and  only  lately,  as 
it  appears,  they  say  that  one  William  Broket  with  the  assistance  of  a  certain 
Gerard  de  la  Hay  "^  about  St.  Katharine's  Day  "  last  came  to  the  aforesaid 

"  Master  of  the  rolls,  142.3-41.  emptod  from  official  duties  {Cal.  Pal.  31 
"  A  clerk  now  at  the  beginning  of  a  Hen.  VI,  06).     lie  was  among  those  ex- 
long  career  in  the  exchequer.    In  1452  he  empted    in    1455    from    the    Resumption 
was  honoured  with  a  special  grant  for  his  Act  (Kol.  Pari,  v,  319). 
good  service  to  Henry  V  and  Henry  VI,  "  25  Nov.  1432. 
and  because  of  his  advanced  age  was  ex- 


99  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

preteritum  venit  ad  predictam  Turrim  una  cum  predicto  Roberto  Polejii, 
et  cum  venisset  illuc  in  domo  ubi  dicta  inquisicio  remanebat,  ut  predictus 
Robertus  PolejTi  asseruit,  predictus  "Willelmus  pecLit  visum  antedicte  in- 
quisicionis,  quam  \-idens  requisiuit  eum  diuersa  alia  recorda  scrutare 
dummodo  ipse  Willelmus  dicte  inquisicionis  copiam  scriberet.  Ipseque 
Robertus,  sciens  ipsum  Willelmum  esse  clericum  scaccarii  domini  Regis  et 
prout  moris  est  juratum  eidem  domino  Regi,  permisit  ipsum  Willelmum 
solum  scribentem  copiam  inquisicionis  antedicte  dmnmodo  ipse  Robertus 
circa  predictum  aliud  scrutineum  aliunde  extitit  occupatus,  per  quod  ipse 
Robertus  bene  recolit  quod  ipse  numquam  aliquem  habere  largum  suum 
dictam  nephandam  rasuram  fecisse  permisit  nisi  solomodo  predictum 
Willelmum.  Et  ideo  peciit  quod  predictus  Willelmus  sit  vocatus  in  dictum 
consilium  de  et  super  premissis  examinari  etc.  Et  super  hoc  predictus 
Robertus  Danvers  pro  majori  declaracione  ac  vera  et  plena  ratificacione 
innocencie  sue  de  rasura  predicta  protulit  diuersas  copias  litterarum 
nomine  predicti  Johannis  Lydeyard  factarimi  predictam  rasuram  concer- 
nencium,  et  post  eandem  rasuram  diuulgatam  predicto  Willelmo  directa- 
rum.  Protulit  eciam  predictus  Robertus  litteras  rescripcionum  ejusdem 
Willelmi  propria  manu  sua  scriptas  et  sigillo  suo  signatas  predicto  Johanni 
Lydeyard  directas,  credente  ipso  Willelmo  easdem  litteras  ad  possessionem 
predicti  Johannis  Lydeyard  tantum  et  non  ad  possessionem  alterius  deuen- 
isse  eandem  rasiuam  tangentes.  In  quibus  quidem  litterarimi  copiis 
nomine  ipsius  Johannis,  ut  predictum  est,  factarum  et  eidem  Willelmo  in 
forma  predicta  directanun  inter  aha  iste  clausule  sequentes  continentur, 
^^dehcet  in  prima  copia:  Right  welbeloved  frende,  I  comaund  me  to  you, 
and  wull  ye  witen  "  that  hit  is  gretely  noysed  in  oure  contrey  '*  by  Danvers 
that  the  clerkes  of  the  Tour  sej-n  that  ye  rased  the  record  of  Piers  Seintjon, 
wherefore  I  praye  you  send  me  wurd  by  letter  whether  any  of  the  clerkes 
of  the  Tour  in  any  wj-se  might  aspie  you  in  rasj-ng  of  the  sejxl  record,  and 
whether  ye  haue  tolde  your  counscll  to  any  of  your  felowes  that  is  aqueynted 
with  Davers,  etc.  Et  quoad  istam  litteram  et  clausulas  predictus  Robertus 
eciam  protulit  quandam  litteram  predicti  Willelmi  responsoriam  propria 
manu  sua  scriptam  et  predicto  Johanni  directam  in  qua  quidem  litters 
iste  clausule  sequentes  inter  alia  continentur:  Reuerent  and  wurshipfuU 
sir,  I  recommaund  me  unto  you,  desirj-ng  your  good  welfare,  prajTig  you 
to  recommaund  me  unto  mj-  maistres  j-our  wife,  dojTig  you  to  wite  that 
I  undirstand  your  letter  wele.  And  as  touchyng  the  clerkes  of  the  Tour 
Credo  quod  non  vidit,  etc.  And  as  touchyng  the  counsell  Nemini  loquebar 
nisi  quod  scitis  etc.  Deinde  idem  Robertus  protulit  quandam  aliam  copiam 
cujusdam  alterius  littere  nomine  predicti  Johannis  facte  et  eidem  Willelmo 
directe  predictam  rasuram  tangentis.  In  qua  quidem  copia  inter  alia  iste 
clausule  continentur:  I  preie  you  send  me  redy  wurd  whether  the  clerk  in 
anj-  wyse  might  aspie  you  while  the  rasure  was  in  bond  and  whcr  aboute 
the  clerk  was  ocupicd  in  the  niene  txTiic.    And  also  send  me  redy  wurd 


DANVERS    V.  BROKET  99 

Tower  along  with  the  aforesaid  Robert  Poleyn,  and  when  he  had  come  there 
to  the  room  where  the  said  inquisition  was  kept,  as  the  aforesaid  Robert 
Poleyn  has  asserted,  the  aforesaid  William  sought  to  view  the  aforesaid 
inquisition,  and  when  he  found  this  he  required  (the  said  Robert)  to  ex- 
amine diverse  other  records,  while  William  himself  was  writing  a  copy  of 
the  said  inquisition.  Anil  the  saiil  Robert,  knowing  that  the  said  William 
was  a  clerk  in  the  exchequer  of  the  lord  the  king  and  according  to  custom 
had  been  sworn  to  the  same  lord  the  king,  permitted  the  said  William  alone 
to  write  a  copy  of  the  aforesaid  inquisition,  while  Robert  himself  was  occu- 
pied elsewhere  with  the  examination  of  something  else,  as  has  been  stated, 
so  that  the  said  Robert  well  remembers  that  he  never  permitted  anyone  to 
have  the  liberty  of  making  this  infamous  rasurc,  excepting  only  the  afore- 
said William.  And  so  he  asked  that  the  said  William  be  called  to  the 
said  council  to  be  examined  in  and  upon  the  premises,  etc.  Hereupon  the 
aforesaid  Robert  Danvers,  in  order  to  have  a  stronger  declaration  and  a 
true  and  complete  ratification  of  his  innocence  of  the  aforesaid  rasure,  pro- 
duced diverse  copies  of  letters  written  in  the  name  of  the  aforesaid  John 
Lydcyard  concerning  the  aforesaid  rasure  and  directed  to  the  aforesaid 
William  after  the  same  rasure  had  been  divulged.  Moreover  the  aforesaid 
Robert  exhibited  certain  letters  of  the  same  WilUam  in  reply  written  by 
his  own  hand,  signed  with  his  own  seal  and  directed  to  the  aforesaid  John 
Lj'dej'ard,  concerning  the  same  rasure,  which  letters,  as  William  himself 
believed  had  come  into  the  possession  of  the  aforesaid  John  Lj'dej-ard  and 
not  to  anyone  else.  In  the  copies  of  these  letters  written  in  the  name  of  the 
said  John,  as  has  been  stated,  and  directed  in  the  aforesaid  manner  to  the 
same  William,  among  other  things  the  following  clauses  occur,  to  wit  in 
the  first  copy:  "  Right  welbeloved  frende,"  etc.  As  to  this  letter  and  these 
clauses  the  aforesaid  Robert  produced  also  a  letter  of  the  aforesaitl  William 
in  reply  written  with  his  own  hand  and  directed  to  the  aforesaid  John, 
wherein  among  other  things  the  following  clauses  occur:  "  Reverent  and 
wiu'shipfull  sir,"  etc.  Then  the  same  Robert  produced  a  copy  of  a  certain 
other  letter  written  in  the  name  of  the  aforesaid  John  and  directed  to  the 
said  William  in  regard  to  the  aforesaid  rasure.  In  this  copy  among  other 
things  the  following  clause  occurs:  "  I  prei  you,"  etc.    As  to  this  point  the 

1*   =  know.  "   =  county. 


100  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

whether  the  olde  letter  be  eleneawey  as  ye  suppose  or  no  etc.  Et  quoad 
hoc  idem  Robertus  insuper  protulit  quandam  aliam  litterani  ipsius  Willehni 
responsoriam  eciam  propria  manu  sua  scriptam  et  eidem  Johanni  directam, 
in  qua  iste  clausule  sequent es  inter  alia  continentur:  As  touchj-ng  the 
clerk,  he  was  busy  aboute  other  thj-nges  ther  while,  for  I  do  you  to  wite 
that  hit  was  in  a  large  hous,  and  the  olde  letter  is  clene  awey  as  I  suppose, 
etc.  Deinde  idem  Robertus  protulit  quandam  aliam  copiam  cujusdam 
alterius  littere  nomine  predicti  Johannis  facte  [et]  eidem  Willelmo  directe 
predictam  rasuram  eciam  concernentis,  in  qua  ista  clausula  inter  aha  con- 
tinetur:  And  also  I  preie  you  hertily  sendeth  me  redy  wiu-d  whether  the 
olde  letter  in  the  record  by  fore  etc.  were  e^-^-n  xl  as  the  newe  is  nowe,  and 
nothing  more  ne  lasse.  or  eUys  more  as  xliiij  or  a  nother  somme,  for  yet  I 
coude  neuer  imdirstond  that  clerly,  for  men  speke  muche  that  ther  shuld 
be  a  gret  space  sejTi  after  the  noxunbre  etc.  Et  quoad  istam  Htteram  et 
clausulam  predictus  Robertus  Danvers  protulit  quandam  aliam  htteram 
dicti  Willehni  responsoriam  propria  manu  sua,  ut  predictiun  est,  scriptam 
et  predicto  Johanni  directam,  in  qua  iste  clausule  sequentes  inter  aha  con- 
tinentur: And  as  touchj-ng  the  olde  letter  in  the  record.  I  sawe  it  nether 
more  ne  losse  then  xl  noumbre.  .\nd  ther  to  sayd  my  ^laisters  MartjTi  '* 
Cottesmore,'"  and  Paston  '*  that  it  was  by  fore,  etc.,  the  nombre  of  xxuij"', 
and  therfore  as  touchjTig  that  ne>-ther  avaimt  nor  arere  "  as  to  me  in  that 
case,  etc.  Et  super  hoc  predictus  Robertus  Danvers  peciit  quod  predictus 
Willelmus  vocettu-  singulis  predict  is  copiis  litteris  et  euidenciis  versus  eum 
superius  aUegatis  coram  dicto  consiUo  responsunis.  Qui  quidem  Willelmus 
ibidem  personaUter  adtunc  comparens,  auditisque  ^•isis  et  intellectis  sibi 
predictis  copiis  Utteris  et  euidenciis  afl&rmauit  et  cognouit  quod  tot  et  tales 
httere  et  clausule  nomine  predicti  Johannis  Lydeyard  facte  ad  manus  suas, 
ut  premittitur,  devenerunt,  et  quod  ipse  credens  eas  per  predictum  Johan- 
nem  factas  fore  et  missas  fecit  predictas  litteras  et  clausulas  responsorias 
et  eas  propria  manu  sua  scripsit  prout  superiius  declaratur.  Cognouit  in- 
super  quod  ipse  solus  circiter  festum  Sancte  Katerine  \'irginis  ultimo  pre- 
teritiun  transiuit  cum  predicto  Roberto  Pole>-n  ad  Turrim  predictam,  et 
quod  nullus  eo  tempore  fuit  in  domo  ubi  recorda  predicta  f ucrunt  nisi  ipsi  duo 
tantum,  prout  idem  Robertus  prius  exposuit,  et  quod  ipse  Willelmus  solus 
adtunc  ungue  digiti  sui  predictimi  mmicrum  xl  in  dicta  inquisicione  tem- 
pore adventus  sui  contentum  rasit,  et  eundcm  niunerum  ut  in  hoc  maxime 
videretur  suspectiun  cum  nouo  incausto  renouauit  et  blottauit.  Et  requi- 
situs  fuit  ibidem  ab  eo  qui  numerus  in  predicta  inquisicione  primo  in  pre- 
dicto loco  raso  tempore  sui  adventus  illuc  extitit.  Dixit  quod  iste  mmierus 
xl  tantum  et  non  major  numerus  neque  minor.  Requisitum  itaque  fuit  ab 
eo  ad  cujus  instanciam  venit  apud  Turrim  predictam  pro  rasura  hujusmodi 
facienda.  DLxit  quod  ad  instanciam  predicti  Johannis  Lydeyard.  Et  super 
hoc  dominus  Thesaurarius  *  Anglie,  qui  circa  examinacionem  ejusdem 
Willelmi  de  rasura  predicta  diuersimode  extitit  laboratus,  ibidem  aperte 


DANVERS   V.  BROKET  100 

same  Robert  produced  still  another  letter  of  William  himself  in  reply  like- 
wise written  with  his  own  hand  and  directed  to  the  same  John,  wherein 

among  other  things  the  followinfi  clausps  occur:  "  As  touching  the  clerk," 
etc.  Then  (lie  same  Uohort  produced  a  copy  of  a  certain  other  letter  written 
in  the  name  of  the  aforesaid  John  and  directed  to  the  same  William,  also 
concerning  the  aforesaid  rasure,  wherein  this  clause  among  others  occurs: 
"  And  also  1  preie  you,"  etc.  As  to  this  letter  and  clause  the  aforesaid 
Robert  Danvers  produced  a  certain  other  letter  of  the  said  William  in  reply 
written  witli  his  own  hand,  as  has  been  stated,  and  directed  to  the  aforesaid 
John,  wherein  among  other  things  the  following  clauses  occur:  "  And  as 
touching  the  old  letter,"  etc.  Hereupon  the  aforesaid  Robert  Danvers 
asked  that  the  aforesaid  William  be  called  to  answer  before  the  said  council 
for  all  tiie  aforesaid  copies,  letters,  and  evidences  alleged  above  against 
him.  And  the  said  William  then  and  there  appeared  in  person,  and  having 
viewed  and  understood  for  himself  the  aforesaid  copies,  letters,  and  evi- 
dences he  affirmed  and  recognised  that  all  such  letters  and  clauses  as  are 
alleged  to  have  been  written  in  the  name  of  the  aforesaid  John  Lydeyard 
had  come  to  his  hands,  and  that  he  believing  them  to  have  been  written 
and  sent  by  the  aforesaid  John  had  written  the  aforesaid  responsory  letters 
and  clauses  with  his  own  hand,  as  has  been  stated  above.  Moreover  he 
admitted  that  about  St.  Katherine's  Day  last  he  went  with  the  aforesaid 
Robert  Poleyn  to  the  aforesaid  Tower,  and  that  no  one  was  at  the  time  in 
the  room  where  the  aforesaid  records  were  kept,  except  themselves,  two 
only,  just  as  the  same  Robert  has  already  explained,  and  that  the  said 
William  then  with  his  fingernail  rased  the  nmnber  XL  contained  in  the  said 
inquisition  at  the  time  of  his  visit,  and  with  fresh  ink  wrote  again  the  same 
nmnber,  blotting  it,  in  order  that  in  this  point  especially  it  might  appear 
(a  matter)  for  suspicion.  Hereupon  he  was  asked  what  number  was  first 
found  there  in  the  aforesaid  inquisition  in  the  aforesaid  place  of  the  rasure 
at  the  time  of  his  visit.  He  said  only  the  number  XL,  nothing  greater  or 
smaller.  He  was  asked  at  whose  instigation  he  went  to  the  aforesaid  Tower 
to  make  such  rasure.  He  said  at  the  instigation  of  the  aforesaid  John 
Lj'deyard.  Hereupon  the  lord  treasurer  ^''  of  England,  who  had  laboureil 
in  diverse  ways  over  the  examination  of  the  same  William,  publicly  pro- 

"  John    Martin,    justice    of    common         "  =  before  nor  after, 
pleas,  1420-.  '"  The  titles  Lord  Treasurer  and  Lord 

"  John   Cottesmore,    Serjeant   at   law,  Chancellor    arc    commonly    supposed    to 

justice  of  common  pleas,  14'29-,  justice  of  arise  in  the  time  of  the  Tudors,  but  they 

oyer  and  terminer,  gaol  delivery,  etc.  are  found  occasionally  as  early  as  this. 

"  William  Paston  of  the  famous  Nor-  The    treasurer    was    John    Lord    Scrope, 

folk  family,  justice  of  common  pleas  1429-  1431-34. 
known  as  the  Good  Judge.     Paston  Letters 
(ed.  Gairdner,  1904),  i,  26. 


101  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

promisit  quod  idem  Willelmus  pro  premissis  transgressionibus  amodo  in 
domini  Regis  scaccario  minime  resideret.  Deinde  dominus  Cancellarius '^ 
Anglie  de  assensu  consilii  predicti  laudans  labores  predicti  Roberti  Danvers 
in  adquisicione  predictarmn  litterarum  pro  declaracione  ^^  sua  rasure  ante- 
diete  eundem  Robertum  nullo  modo  reum  set  innocentem  rasure  hujusmodi 
et  immunem  ibidem  publice  declarauit.  Et  ulterius  quod  idem  Willelmus 
non  amodo  scriberet  neque  resideret  in  aliqua  curia  domini  Regis  ubi  recorda 
ocuparentur  aut  extiterint.  Et  super  hoc  predictus  Robertus  peciit  omnia 
predicta  pro  ejus  declaracione  irrotulari  etc.,  et  ei  conceditur  etc. 

[Signed:]  H.  Goucestre,"  H.  Cantuar,-''  T.  Duresme,-^  J.  Bathon, 
CANc'r«  W.  Lincoln',"  r.  Londonien',=«  P.  Elien',='  H.  Stafford,«> 

H.  NORTHVMBYRLONDE.^' 

[Endorsed:  — ]  Decimo  die  Julii  Anno  undecimo  apud  Westmonasterium 
lectus  et  concordatus  fuit  presens  actus,  et  pro  declaracione  innocencie 
quantum  ad  rasuram  de  qua  infra  fit  mencio  infrascripti  Roberti  Banners 
concordatum  et  concessum  fuit  quod  fiat  warantimi  sub  priuato  sigiUo 
cancellario  Anglie  directmn  includendo  in  eodem  tenorem  actus  predicti, 
mandando  eidem  quod  tenorem  eimdem  in  rotulis  canceUarie  inter  recorda 
ejusdem  inscribi  et  irrotulari  faciat,  pro  excusacione  predicti  Roberti  ab 
omni  crimine  rasure  predicte  remansurum  de  recordo,  presentibus  dominis 
se  intra  scribentibus  et  aliis.^^ 

NEVILLE  V.  NEVILLE ' 

1436  Memorandum  that  in  the  KjTiges  parlement  -  hald  at  Westminster  the 
ix  dey  of  December  m  the  xiiij  yere  of  his  reigne  it  liked  hym  to  desire 
Richard  Erie  of  Salisbury  ^  and  William  Lorde  of  Fauconberge  *  knyght  to 
go  in  to  his  reme  of  Fraunce  to  do  hjTn  seruice  there,  as  wele  in  defense  and 
kepyng  of  that  that  it  hath  liked  God  to  suffre  to  be  now  in  his  obeissaunce 
there  as  in  rekeueryng  of  the  remenaunt  of  his  said  reme  occupyed  be  his 
rebels  and  enemys ;  to  the  which  the  kynges  desyer  the  said  Richard  and  Wil- 
liam humbly  agreid  hem  in  certayn  manere  and  forme,  and  in  especial  so  that 

»  John  Stafford,  1432-50.  "  pyiip  Morgan,  bishop  of  Ely,  1426- 

'^  i.  e.  of  innocence.  36. 

^  Humphrey  Duke  of  Gloucester.  '"  Humphrey  Stafford,  sixth  earl,  later 

'*  Henry  Chicheley,  archbishop  of  Can-  duke  of  Buckingham,  d.  1460. 

terbury,  1414-43.  "  Henry   Percy,    second   earl   of   Nor- 

2'  Thomas  Langley,  bishop  of  Durham,  thumberland,  d.  1455. 

1406-37.  '-  A  memorandum  of  this  act  is  given 

^'  John  Stafford,   bishop  of  Bath  and  in    Nicolas,     Proceedings,    iv,     166     (see 

Wells,  1425-43.  Introd.).    The  enrolment  called  for,  as  a 

"  William    Grey,    bishop    of    Lincoln,  declaration   of   Danvers'   innocence,   was 

1431-36.  made  in  the  Close  Jioll,  11  Hen.  VI,  m. 

"  Robert  Fitzhugh,  bishop  of  London,  4  d. 
1431-36. 


NEVILLE    V.  NEVILLE  101 

claimed  that  the  said  William  by  reason  of  the  transgressions  above  set 
forth  should  no  longer  remain  in  the  exchequer  of  the  lord  the  king.  Then 
the  lord  chancellor  ='  of  England  with  the  assent  of  the  aforesaid  council, 
praising  the  labours  of  the  aforesaid  Rolx-rt  Danvcrs  in  actiuiring  the 
aforesaid  letters,  for  his  declaration  "  of  the  aforesaid  rasUre,  publicly 
pronounced  the  same  Robert  to  be  by  no  means  guilty  but  innocent  of 
such  rasure  and  immune  therefor;  furthermore  that  the  said  William 
should  no  longer  write  or  serve  in  any  court  of  the  lord  the  king  where 
records  are  used  or  kept.  Hereupon  the  aforesaid  Robert  asked  that  all 
the  foregoing  matters  should  be  enrolled  as  his  declaration,  etc.,  and  this 
was  granted  him,  etc. 

[Signed:]  H.  Gloucestre.^^  H.  Cantuar.^''  T.  Duresme."^  J.  Bathon. 
Canc.=«  W.  Lincoln.2^  R.  LoNDONiEN.^sp.  Elien.^'  H.  Stafford.'"  H.  Nor- 

HUMBYRLONDE.'' 

[Endorsed:  — ]  On  the  10th  day  of  July  in  the  11th  year  at  Westminster, 
this  act  was  read  and  passed,  and  for  a  declaration  of  innocence  in  behalf  of 
the  aforesaid  Robert  Danvers  with  regard  to  the  rasure,  of  which  mention 
has  been  made  above,  it  was  agreed  to  and  granted  that  warrant  under  the 
privy  seal  should  be  issued  to  the  chancellor  of  England,  including  in  the 
same  a  tenor  of  the  aforesaid  act,  commanding  him  to  have  the  same 
tenor  inscribed  and  enrolled  in  the  rolls  of  the  chancery  among  the  records 
of  the  same,  for  the  exculpation  of  the  aforesaid  Robert  of  all  crime  in  the 
aforesaid  rasure,  to  stand  as  a  record;  in  the  presence  of  the  lords  herein 
signing  (their  names)  and  others.'- 

NEVILLE  V.  NEVILLE  [continued) 

it  liked  the  kynges  good  grace  to  gete  the  assent  and  licence  of  thair  good 
lady  and  modir  ^  ther  to,  with  oute  whoos  good  assent  and  licence  for  diuers 
resons  shewyd  and  allegid  be  thaym  thei  durst  nogt  ner  godely  mygt  take 

>  Council  and  Privy  Seal  (Exch.  T.  R.),  Dugdale   it   contained   an   agreement   to 

file  56,  11  March,  14  Hen.  VI.  furnish  3  bannerets,  7  knights,  249  men- 

2  There  is  no  record  of  the  event  in  the  at-arms,   1040  archers   (op.  cit.  202),  for 

Rolls  of  Parhanient,  but  an  exempHfica-  which  the  king  promised  him  £700  [Cal. 

tion  of  the  present  memorandum  is  given  Pal.  516).    Under  this  agreement  the  earl 

in  the  Patent  Rolls.    Cal.  Pat.  14  Hen.  VI,  went  to  France  in  May,  1436  and  returned 

595.  in  November,   1437.     From  1437-40  the 

'  Richard  Neville,  1400-60,  eldest  son  earl  of  Salisbury  occupied  a  place  as  mem- 

of  Ralph  first  earl  of  Westmoreland,  by  ber  of  the  council  and  enjoyed  much  of 

his  second  wife  Joan  Beaufort  (Dugdale,  the    patronage    of    the    crown    (Nicolas, 

i,  302;    Did.  Nat.  Biog.).    He  gained  his  passim). 

lands    and    title    by    marriage    with    the  ■*  William  Neville,  younger  son  of  the 

daughter  and  heiress  of  Thomas  of  Monta-  late  earl  of  Westmoreland  and  Joan,  who 

cute  Earl  of  Salisbury,  a  title  recognized  acquired  lands  and  title  by  his  marriage 

by  the  king's  council  (Nicolas,  iii,  325).  with  Joan  daughter  of  Sir  Thomas  Fau- 

The  indenture  here  aUuded  to  is  not  in  conberg.    Dugdale,  i,  308. 

the  Rolls  of  Parliament,  but  as  given  by  '  Joan  Beaufort,  daughter  of  John  of 


102  CASES   BEFORE   THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

upon  hem  to  passe  out  of  this  reme;  of  the  whiche  oon  amonge  other  was 
doute  *  of  sutes,  unlawfful  entrees  and  other  labores  that  mj^ght  and  as 
thaj'  supposid  were  hke  to  be  maid  and  doen,  thaym  bejTig  out  of  this  lande, 
namly  be  Eaaf  now  Erie  of  Westmerland,'  John  *  and  Thomas '  his  brether, 
and  other  that  be  toward  hem  in  prejudice  and  disheiyteson  of  thair  said 
modir,  of  tha^-m,  thair  brether  and  of  the  fefifees  of  Raaf  late  Erie  of  West- 
merland,^" thair  fadir,  and  other  persones  that  the  thing  mj-gt  touche.  The 
which  thair  answer  causid  the  kjTig  be  thauise  of  his  consail  and  in  especial 
in  eschuj-ng  of  trouble  and  bruser  of  his  pees  to  conmiaunde  his  lettres  of 
priue  seal  to  be  send  to  Johan  Comtesse  of  Westmerland  modir  to  the  said 
Erie  of  SaUsburj^  and  to  the  Lorde  of  Fauconberge  and  also  to  the  said  Rauf 
Erie  of  Westmerland  and  John  and  Thomas  his  brether,  prefixj^ng  hem  in 
the  said  lettres  a  day  at  the  wliich  thai  shold  be  before  his  counsail  at  West- 
minster. At  the  which  day  and  place  of  Westminster  the  said  Comtesse 
appierid,  and  nogt  longe  after  appierid  the  said  Rauf  Erie  of  Westmerland. 
The  which  Comtesse,  after  that  the  kj^nges  said  entent  and  desire  of  seruice 
of  her  said  sones  was  openid  to  hir,  and  dehberacion  had  be  hem  ther  upon, 
agreid  at  the  reuerence  of  the  Kyng  ther  to  in  certeyn  maner  and  forme,  the 
which  she  gaf  in  writjmg,  contienyng  diuerse  requestes  and  desires,  and 
amonge  other  desire  of  surete  to  be  maad  be  the  said  Rauf  Erie  of  West- 
merland in  swich  wise  as  the  said  writjTig  purportith.  After  the  which  her 
agrement,  assent,  and  writyng  so  geujTi,  the  said  Rauf  Erie  of  Westmerland 
at  the  reuerence  and  request  of  the  kjmg  and  in  furt  bring  of  his  seruice, 
bonde  hjTU  silfe  in  the  kjmges  presence  and  of  the  worsliipful  fadir  in  God 
the  bisshop  of  Bath,  Chaunceller  "  of  Englond,  the  xxviij  day  of  Feueryer, 
be  a  reconusance  to  the  kyng  in  the  summe  of  iiij"li.'^  as  for  surete  of  the 
said  Comtesse  Richard  and  William,  thair  brether  and  other  namid  be  hem. 

Gaunt,   second  wife  of  the  late  earl  of  quarrel  with  the  younger  branch  of  the 

Westmoreland,     who    had    been     made,  family  (see  Introd.)-    He  was  at  this  time 

jointly  with  her  son  Richard,  executrix  of  justice  of  the  peace  in  Northumberland, 

her  husband's  will.    It  was  on  the  execu-  Westmoreland,  and  York,  but  he  was  not 

tion  of  this  wiU  that  litigation  had  been  a   member   of   the   council,   nor   was   he 

kept   up   between    two   branches   of   the  honoured  to  any  such  extent  as  his  uncle 

family.    D.  Rowland,  Hist,  of  the  Family  Richard.    First  a  youth,  later  an  invalid, 

of  Neville  (1830),  pp.  33  f.  he  counted  politically  for  Uttle. 

•  =  fear.  '  Later  Lord  Neville,  killed  in  1461. 

'  Grandson  of  the  late  earl  by  his  first  •  Sir  Thomas. 

wife,  who  succeeded  to  the  earldom  in         '°  First  carl,  d.  1425,  who  had  twentj'- 

1425,  while  still  a  minor.     For  years  he  three  children  in  two  groups,  the  first  by 

maintained  jointly  with  his  brothers  the  his  wife  Margaret  Stafford,  the  second  by 


NEVILLE    V.  NEVILLE  102 

to  forbore  and  make  to  he  forboryii  stites,  entrees  and  other  thynges  aj'cns 
the  Siiid  Conitesse,  Richard,  and  William,  and  tlieir  brother,  and  other 
persones  declarid  in  the  condicion  of  the  said  rcconusance,  and  in  the  maner 
and  forme  and  for  the  tymos  ospecifyed  in  the  same  condicion.  After  the 
which  bondo  and  suretc  so  niaad,  tlie  kyng,  cOnsideryng  the  thynges  aboue 
said  and  in  especial  the  tendirnes  that  as  wel  the  said  Comtesse  as  the  said 
Erie  of  Salisbury  and  the  Lord  Fauconbergc  had  to  that  that  shold  mow 
be  to  the  worshipe,  wele  and  seruice  of  hym,  grantid  for  hym  anil  his  heires, 
that  if  it  hapned  the  same  bonde,  surete  and  summe  at  any  tyme  after  to 
be  forfaitcd,  thai  shold  be  suyd  be  his  attourney  or  the  attourney  of  his 
heires  for  the  tyme  beyng,  with  the  assistence  of  his  or  ther  sergeantcs  of 
law  to  the  behoue  of  the  said  Comtesse,  and  Erie  of  Salisbury,  or  of  thair 
executores  and  assignees.  And  that  al  that  shalbe  or  shal  mow  be  recouerid 
be  the  said  sute  shall  be  payyil  and  applyyd  to  the  said  Comtesse,  and  Erie 
of  Salisbury,  or  to  thair  executores  and  assignees.  And  that  he  ne  shal  in 
general  ne  in  especial  pardone  ne  relessc  to  the  said  Raaf,  Erie  of  Westmor- 
land, ner  to  his  heires  or  executores  the  said  bonde  or  suinme  of  iiij^li.  at  any 
tyme  with  oute  the  assent  of  the  said  Comtesse  or  Erie  of  Sahsbury,  or  thex- 
ecutores  and  assignees  of  thaym  or  of  the  oon  of  hem.  And  that  of  this 
his  graunt  the  said  Comtesse  and  Erie  of  Salisbury  shall  haue  his  lettres 
paten tes  maad  to  hem  in  suffisient  and  due  forme. 

[Signed:  — ]    H.  Gloucestre."  H.  Cardinal."  J.  Ebor'.'^  J.  Bathon' 
Canc.  H.  Northumbyrlonde.^'  Huntyngton."  Suffolk.'* 

Lettre  ent  feust  faite  a  Westminster  le  xi°  jour  de  Marcs  Ian,  etc.'' 
xiiij. 

Joan  Beaufort  of  royal  blood.    He  diverted  ''  Humphrey,  d.  1447. 

half  of  the  Neville  estates  to  the  children  "  Henry  Beaufort,  bishop  of  Winchester, 

of  the  .second  marriage  and  finally  left  a  1405-47. 

will  so  far  favourable  to  them,  that  it  was  "  John    Kemp,    archbishop    of    York, 

contested    for    years    afterwards.      Did.  1426-50. 

Nat.  Biog.  "  Henry  Percy,  second  earl  of  Northum- 

"  John  Stafford,  chancellor,  1432-50.  berland. 

"  There  was  a  debt  of  £4000  which  the  "  John  Holland,  second  earl  of  Hunting- 
earl  of  Westmoreland  recognized  he  owed  don,  d.  1447. 

to  the  countess  and  Kichard  his  brother,  "  William  de  la  Pole,  fourth  earl  of 

pursuant  to  a  grant  of  his  father.    A  recog-  Suffolk,  d.  1450. 

nizance  was  enrolled  in  the  f7o.se  Roll,  13  "  Cat.  Pat.  Rolh,  14  Hen.  VI,  595. 
Hen.  VI,  m.  14,  and  renewed  16  Hen.  VI, 
m.  8. 


103  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

CONFESSION  AND  EXAMINATION  OF  JOHN  FORDE  > 
A 

1439  Memorandum  quod  quartodecimo  die  Mali  ultimo  preterito  Johannes 
Memorandum  Forde "  de  London  mercer  venit  in  propria  persona  sua  apud  Westmonas- 
johannisForde  terium  videlicet  in  camera  stellata  infra  palacium  Regis  coram  Radulfo 
domino  de  Cromwell,  chiualer,  Thesaurario  Anglie,  Johanne  Fray '  et 
WiUelmo  Fallan  *  clerico  Baronibus  de  Scaccario  predicti  domini  Regis,  in 
presencia  Johannis  ^'ampage,°  attornati  domini  Regis,  ac  Roberti  Whi- 
txTigham,^  majoris  stapule  predicti  domini  Regis  ville  sue  Gales',  necnon 
Willelmi  Estfeld,'  Roberti  Large  *  et  Hugonis  Dj-ke,'  mercatorum  de 
societate  ejusdem  stapule,  et  sacramentum  prestitit  corporale  de  veritate 
dicenda  super  certis  articulis  commodum  dicti  domini  Regis  tangentibus. 
Et  super  hoc  idem  Johannes  adtunc  et  ibidem  examinatus  si  ipse  ahquam 
lanam  vel  aUquas  pelles  lanutas  alicui  alienigene  ante  hec  tempora  vendi- 
derit,  idem  Johannes  dicit  et  bene  cognouit  quod  ipse  mense  Mali  anno 
regni  dicti  domini  Regis  nunc  sextodecimo  apud  London'  in  parochia  de 
Aldermarichirche  "*  vendidit  cuidam  Gerardo  Matson,  ducheman,  \'iginti 
et  sex  petras  lane  precii  cujuslibet  petre  tres  sohdos  et  septem  duodenas  " 
panni  lanei  lati  precii  duodene  pro  eodem  precio  inter  eosdem  Johannem 
Forde  et  Gerardum  concordato,  et  quod  idem  Johannes  Forde  postea 
eosdem  lanam  et  pannos  paccari  fecit  in  quodam  pacco,  et  eundem  paccum 
sic  paccatum  apud  dictam  ciuitatem  London'  in  Graschurchestrete,  vide- 
licet, in  parochia  Sancti  Benedict!,  cuidam  Johanni  Piper,  seruienti  demen- 
tis Comber  de  Colcestr',  usque  eandem  villam  Colcestr'  in  carecta  ipsius 
dementis,  unde  idem  seruiens  adtunc  fuit  carectarius,  cariandum  et 
Johanni  Cranle  de  Colcestr'  predicta  ibidem  liberandum.  Et  insuper  pre- 
dictus  Johannes  Forde  dicit  quod  super  liberacione  pacci  predicti  prefato 
seruienti  apud  London',  ut  predictum  est,  facta,  idem  Johannes  Forde 
liberauit  eidem  seruienti  quandam  Utteram  ipsius  Johannis  Forde  prefato 
Johanni  Cranle  directam,  per  quam  litteram  idem  Johannes  Forde  voluit 
et  mandauit  eidem  Johanni  Cranle  quod  ipse  pacciun  predictum  a  prefato 

'  Exemplified    in    the    Chse   Roll,    17  occasions  appointed  to  inquire  into  cases 

Hen.  VI,  m.  6,  including  A  the  memoran-  of  iUicit  exportation  of  wool  and  evasion 

dum  of  the  council,  and  B  the  consequent  of  the  customs.     Cal.  Pat.  17  Hen.  VI, 

WTit.  315;    18  Hen.  VI,  372,  417,  etc. 

'  A  mercer  of  London  he  is  called  in  B.  '  Esquire,    justice    of    the    peace    in 

'  Appointed    third    baron   of    the   ex-  Worcestershire,  commissioner  of  oyer  and 

chequer  in   1426,   second  baron  in   1435,  terminer,  etc.,  king's  attorney  in  chancery 

chief  baron  in  1436,  and  in  this  capacity  in  1439  {Cal.  Pat.  294). 
he  was  still  active  in  1443.    For  his  good  •  Draper    of    London,     alderman    of 

service  in  the  exchequer  he  recieved  a  life  Bishopsgate,  1417-22,  of  Walbrook,  1422- 

grant  of  a  manor  worth  40  marks  a  year  28,  sheriff  of  Herts  and  Essex,  1433-34, 

(Cal.  Pat.  15  Hen.  VI,  50).    He  was  justice  and  1438-39  (Beaven,  Aldermen  of  London, 

of  the  peace  in  several  counties  and  com-  ii,  5),  one  of  the  e.xecutors  of  the  will  of  the 

missioner  of  various  sort.  late  duke  of  Bedford,  mayor  of  the  staple 

*  Baron  of  the  exchequer  1436-44,  and  and  treasurer  of  Calais,  1439-40  {Cal.  Pal. 

commissioner.     He  was  on  several  other  Rolls).    His  will  is  dated  1452. 


CONFESSION    AND    EXAMINATION    OF   JOHN    FORDE         103 

CONFESSION  AND  EX.\MINATION  OF  JOHN  FORDE  > 
A 
1439        Memorandum  of  a  confession  and  examination  of  John  Forde. 

Be  it  rememl)eied  that  on  tiie  fourteenth  day  of  last  May,  John  Forde  ' 
of  London,  mercer,  came  in  person  to  Westminster,  that  is,  in  the  star 
chamber  within  the  i<ing's  palace  before  Ralph  Lord  Cromwell,  knight, 
treasurer  of  Knghuul,  John  Fray  ''  and  William  Fallan,^  clerk,  barons  of  the 
exchequer  of  the  aforesaid  lord  the  king,  in  the  presence  of  John  Vampage,' 
the  lord  the  king's  attorney,  and  Robert  Whityngham,*  mayor  of  the  afore- 
said king's  staple  of  his  town  of  Calais,  as  well  as  William  Estfeld,'  Robert 
Large,'  and  Hugh  Dyke,'  merchants  of  the  society  of  the  said  staple;  and 
he  took  an  oath  in  person  to  tell  the  truth  about  certain  articles  touching 
the  interests  of  the  said  lord  the  king.  With  regard  to  these  things  the  said 
John,  having  been  then  and  there  examined  as  to  whether  he  had  previously 
sold  any  wool  or  wool  fells  to  any  foreigner,  the  same  John  declares  and 
fully  acknowledges  that  in  the  month  of  May  in  the  sixteenth  year  of  our 
said  lord  the  present  king,  at  London  in  the  parish  of  Aldermary  Church,'" 
he  sold  to  a  certain  Gerard  Matson,  a  Dutchman,  twenty-six  stone  of  wool, 
valued  at  three  shillings  a  stone,  and  seven  dozens  "  of  woolen  broadcloth 
at  a  price  per  dozen  the  same  as  had  been  agreed  upon  between  the  same 
John  Forde  and  Gerard,  and  that  the  same  John  Forde  afterwards  caused 
the  said  wool  and  cloth  to  be  packed  in  a  certain  pack,  and  the  same  pack 
thus  put  together  in  the  said  city  of  London  in  Gracechurch  Street,  that  is, 
in  the  parish  of  St.  Benet,  he  caused  to  be  carried  to  the  town  of  Colchester, 
to  a  certain  John  Piper,  servant  of  Clement  Comber  of  the  same  town  of 
Colchester  in  a  cart  belonging  to  the  said  Clement,  for  whom  the  said 
servant  was  then  carter,  and  had  it  delivered  there  to  John  Cranio  in  the 
aforesaid  (town  of)  Colchester.  Hereupon  the  said  John  Forde  says  that 
upon  the  delivery  of  the  aforesaid  pack  to  the  aforesaid  servant  at  London, 
as  has  been  told,  the  same  John  Forde  delivered  to  the  said  servant  a  cer- 
tain letter  of  the  said  John  Forde  directed  to  the  aforesaid  John  Cranle, 
wherein  the  same  John  Forde  expressed  to  the  said  John  Cranle  his  wish 

'Mercer    of     London,     alderman    of  1439-40  (Beaven,  ii,  7).    He  was  appointed 

Cripplegate,    1423-46,    mayor,    1429-30,  in  1440  to  at  least  two  commissions  to  deal 

and  under  the  law  that  no  one  should  serve  with  illegal  practices  in  the  wool  trade 

a  second  term  within  seven  years,  mayor  {Cal.  Pat.  373). 

again,  1437-38.   He  was  noted  for  Iiis  pub-  '  Mercer    of    London,    candidate    for 

lie   improvements  and   was   knighted    15  alderman  in  1437  (Beaven,  i,  14.5),  sheriff 

May,  1439,  the  day  after  the  date  of  the  in  1438,  and  collector  of  the  subsidy  on 

present  case.     He  was  member  of  parlia-  wool  in  London  in  1439  {Cal.  Pat.  257). 
ment  for  London  in  1431,  1439,  and  1442,         ">  St.  Mary  Aldermanbury  in  Cripples- 

and  died  in  1448,  leaving  much  property,  gate.    Kingsford-Stow,  i,  292. 
Beaven,  Aldermen,  ii,  6;    Cal.  Letter-books,  "  Dozen,   a   kind   of  kersey  or  coarse 

K;    Wills  in  the  Hunting,  ii,  509.  woolen     cloth,     e.g.    "broadcloths    and 

'Mercer    of    London,     alderman    of  dozens,"  mentioned  in  Statute  11  Hen.  VI, 

Castle  Baynard,  1429-41,  sheriff  in  1430,  c.9. 
member  of  parliament  in    1435,   mayor. 


104  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

carectario  reciperet,  et  in  casu  quo  predictus  Gerardus  solueret  eidem 
Johanni  Cranle  ad  opus  predict!  Johanni  Forde  octo  libras,  extunc  idem 
Johannes  Cranle  paccum  predictum  predicto  Gerardo  sine  dilacione  liberari 
faceret.  Examinatus  eciam  idem  Johannes  Forde  quis  vel  qui  eundem 
paccum  paccauit  siue  paccarunt  et  quo  modo,  idem  Johannes  Forde  dicit 
quod  ipse  et  predictus  Gerardus  in  dicta  ciuitate  London',  \-idehcet,  in  domo 
ipsius  Johannis  Forde  in  parochia  Sancti  Dunstani  '^  in  le  Est  London' 
dictum  paccum  inter  se  paccarunt,  ponendo,  paccando,  suppeditando  et 
firmiter  premendo  lanam  predictam  inter  pannos  laneos  predictos  et  cir- 
cumuoluendo  subtiliter  eandem  lanam  cum  ahquibus  pannis  de  pannis 
predictis  ex  qualibet  parte  ejusdem  lane  in  ahquibus  pannis  de  pannis  pre- 
dictis,  ac  eciam  cucumuoluendo  eundem  paccum  circumquaque  cum  panno 
lineo  ad  modum  paccorum  laneorum  taUter  quod  omnibus  estimaretur 
paccus  cum  pannis  laneis  et  non  cum  ahquibus  lanis." 

B 

Dc  liberando       j^gx  custodi  prisoue  uostre  de  Flete  vel  ejus  locmntenenti  salutem. 

et  recipiendo  _..  t-,,  -ixii 

Johannem     .rrecipunus  tibi  quod  Johannem  Forde  semorem  de  London    mercer  sub 
Forde  custodia  tua  detentum  habeas  apud  Westmonasterium  die  veneris  proximo 

futuro  et  ipsum  ibidem  ^dcecomitibus  nostris  London'  ad  ipsum  per  eos 
sub  certa  forma  per  nos  sibi  data  ob  demerita  sua  castigandum  et  punien- 
dum  '■'  liberes,  et  ipsum  sic  castigatum  et  punitum  a  predictis  vicecomitibus 
recipias  et  ipsum  in  prisona  predicta  quousque  pro  ejus  deliberacione  aliud 
a  nobis  habueritis  in  mandatis  saluo  et  secm-e  custodiri  facias.  Et  hoc 
nullatenus  omittas.  Mandauimus  enim  eisdem  vicecomitibus  quod  ipsum 
Johannem  a  te  recipiant  et  eum  iterato  tibi  deliberent  m  forma  supradicta. 
Teste  Rege  apud  Westmonasterium  xvij  die  Junii. 

per  breue  de  priuato  sigillo. 

EXAJMINATION  INTO  THE  BEDFORD  RIOT' 
A 

1439        Hi  sunt  articuh  examinationum  iiij"'  partium  sequentium  infrascrip- 

tarum  \adehcet  Thome  Wauton  miUtis,  etc.    Et  responsiones  ad  eosdem 

articulos. 

[Translation: — ] 

These  are  the  articles  of  examination  of  the  four  following  parties, 
described  below,  namely  Thomas  Wauton  knight,  etc.,  and  their  answers 
to  the  same  articles. 

"  In    Tower   Ward.      Kingsford-Stow,  prisoner  being  brouKht  forth  from  day  to 

i,  134.  day  to  stand  thus  in  disgrace  for  an  hour 

"  On  such  methods  of  smuggHng  see  Stat^  or  more  at  a  time.    Sometimes  there  were 

utc  8  Hen.  VI,  c.  22;  also  Introd.  p.  cxi.  exhibited  articles  suggestive  of  the  crime, 

"  Probably  the  pillory  was  the  means  as  when  in  the  case  of  a  fraudulent  coal 

of  chastisement  intended.    This  was  com-  seller  burning  sacks  were  put  at  his  feet, 

monly  used  in  just  such  a  manner,  the  Cal.  Letler-books,  K,  95,  etc. 


EXAMINATION    INTO    THE    BEDFORD   RIOT  104 

that  he  should  receive  tlie  aforesaid  pack  from  the  aforesaid  carter,  and  as 
soon  as  tiie  aforesaid  Gerard  should  pay  to  the  said  John  Cranio  eight 
pounds  for  the  profit  of  the  aforesaid  John  Ford,  iinmediately  the  said  John 
Cranle  should  have  the  aforesaid  pack  delivered  to  the  aforesaid  Gerard 
witliout  delay.  And  the  same  John  Forde  having  been  examined  also  as  to 
what  man  or  men  had  done  the  aforesaid  packing  and  how  it  was  done,  the 
same  John  Forde  declares  that  he  and  the  aforesaid  Gerard,  in  the  said 
city  of  London,  that  is,  in  the  house  of  John  Forde  himself  in  the  parish  of 
St.  Dunstan,"  in  the  east  of  London,  did  the  said  packing  by  themselves, 
putting  in  the  aforesaid  wool,  packing  it  down,  stamping  upon  it  and  firmly 
pressing  it  between  the  (folds  of  the)  aforesaid  woolen  cloth,  craftily  bind- 
ing up  part  of  the  same  wool  with  some  of  the  aforesaid  cloth  and  part  of  it 
with  the  rest,  also  binding  together  the  .said  pack  all  around  with  linen 
cloth  after  the  fashion  of  packs  of  woolen  (goods),  so  that  it  would  be 
appraised  by  all  as  a  pack  of  woolen  cloth  and  not  of  any  wool." 

B 

Concerning  the  delivery  and  return  of  John  Forde. 

The  king  to  our  warden  of  the  Fleet  prison  or  his  deputy  greeting.  We 
direct  you  that  on  Friday  next  you  bring  to  Westminster  John  Forde,  the 
elder,  mercer  of  London,  who  has  been  detained  in  your  custody,  and  there 
deliver  him  to  our  sheriffs  of  London  to  be  chastised  and  punished  '^  by 
them,  because  of  his  delinquencies,  according  to  certain  directions  given 
to  them  by  us;  and  after  he  has  been  thus  chastised  and  punished  by  the 
aforesaid  sheriffs,  do  you  take  him  back  and  have  him  safely  and  securely 
guarded  in  the  aforesaid  prison,  until  j'ou  shall  have  had  further  orders 
from  us  for  his  liberation.  And  this  do  you  in  no  wise  omit.  For  we  have 
commanded  the  same  sheriffs  that  they  shall  receive  the  said  John  from 
you  and  return  him  again  to  you  in  the  abovesaid  manner.  Witness  the 
king  at  Westminster  on  the  17th  day  of  June.         By  writ  of  privy  seal. 


EXAMINATION  INTO  THE  BEDFORD   RIOT  (continued) 
B 

The  x°  day  of  Feuerer  the  xvii'=  j'ere  of  the  Kyng  at  Westmynstre  in  the 

Sterre  Chambre  beyng  thanne  present  the  high  and  myghti  prince  Due  of 

Gloucestre^  the  Bishops  of  Bath'  chaunceller  and  of  seint  Dauid''  therles 

'  The  original  record  of  this  examina-  record  of  the  proceeding  before  us.    This 

tion  is  found  in  Parliamoitary  and  Council  is  found  in  Pari.  Proceedings  (Chancery), 

Proceedings    (Exchequer),    file    4,    no.    5,  file  22,  no.  IS.    The  opening  paragraph  \, 

which  was  printed  in  The  King's  Council,  since  it  does  not  occur  in  the  exemplifica- 

p.   529.     That  record  however  is  badly  tion,   has  been  taken  from  the  original 

damaged,   half  of  the  paper  being  torn  record.     Likewise  the  petition  C  is  at- 

away,  so  that  the  rest  is  hardly  intelligible.  tachcd  to  the  latter  record. 
The  subsequent  discovery  of  an  exempli-  ^  Humphrey,  d.  1447. 

fication,  which  was  used  fn  draughting  the  '  John  Stafford,  chancellor,  1432-50., 

ensuing  letters  patent,  has  placed  a  full  *  Thomas  Rodburn,  1433-42. 


105  CASES   BEFOEE   THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

of  Sarum  ^  and  Northumberland  *  the  Lord  Cromwel '  Tresorer  of  England 
WiUiam  Ljiidewode  ^  keper  of  the  kyngis  priue  seal  and  Robert  Rolleston  ' 
Warderober  the  Kyngis  counsaillours  examined  the  pei-sones  whoos  namis 
here  on  folow  upon  the  ryot  that  was  doo  at  Bedford  the  xii'  day  of 
Januer  the  yere  abouesaid.  And  First  '"  was  called  before  the  seid  counsail 
Thomas  Wawton  "  and  sworne  upon  a  boke  to  sey  the  playn  trouth  and 
nouzt  to  melle  it  with  eny  ontrouth  for  hate  or  euel  will  neither  for  loue  ner 
fauour  but  plainly  report  as  it  was  in  dede  nouzt  sparing  for  no  persone  ne 
for  no  thyng,  and  he  seid  plainlj-  he  wolde  saye  the  trouth  in  such  thingis 
as  shulde  be  demanded  of  him.  First  it  was  asked  him  yif  he  hadde  sette 
his  seel  unto  the  certificat  ^-  that  was  yeue  and  put  up  to  the  kyng  upon  the 
lord  Faunhope  ^'  as  touching  the  seid  mater  of  Bedford,  and  he  answered 
ye.  And  forthwith  asked  yif  he  knewe  the  mater  content  in  the  seid  certi- 
ficatt,  and  he  answered  ye.  He  was  asked  with  what  pepil  the  lord  Faun- 
hope came  to  the  towne  of  Bedford  at  that  tyme  and  in  what  arraj',  he 
answered  as  to  the  nombre  of  persones  with  a  sexti,  and  as  to  theire  array 
with  thikk  doublettis  and  swerdis  and  bokelers  and  thus  arraied  some  of 
theime  come  into  the  halle  and  a  too  of  theiiue  within  the  barre.  It  was 
asked  yif  the  seid  lord  Faunhope  at  other  sessions  afore  that  tjTne  was  wont 
to  come  in  like  array  he  answered  ye.  He  was  asked  wheder  he  cam  to 
the  halle  before  the  lord  Faunhope  and  hou  many  of  the  justices  were  there 
to  giders  ar  the  lord  Faunhope  cam,  he  answered  that  he  and  John  En- 
derby,"  John  Fitz,'*  and  Harry  Etwell  **  came  to  the  halle  before  the  lord 

'  Richard  Ne^nlle,  1400-60.  shire  (Dugdale,  ii,  212).   He  first  attracted 

'  Henry  Percy,  second  earl,  1394-1455.  attention  in  the  wars  of  Richard  II  (e.  g. 

'  Ralph  Cromwell,  treasurer,  1434-44.  Cal.  Pal.  8  Ric.  II,  43),  and  gained  the 

'  or   Lindwood,   keeper   of   the   privj'  favour   of   Henry   IV,   V,   and   VI.     He 

seal,  1435-.  married  the  sister  of  Henry  IV,  became  a 

'  Keeper  of  the  great  wardrobe,  1436-  Knight  of  the  Garter,  and  in     1432  was 

44.  created  Lord  Fanhope  in  open  parliament. 

'"  The  following  clauses  in  the  original  His   chief   manors   in   Bedford.shire   were 

record  are  set  off  by  paragraphs;    in  the  Ampthill  and  Milbrook,  and  in  1442  he 

exemplificatioil    they   are   introduced    by  gained  the  added  title  of  Baron  Milbrook. 

heavy  letters,  represented  here  by  capitals.  From  1434  he  was  a  member  and  attendant 

"  Wauton  or  Walton  of  Eton,  knight,  of  the  king's  council  (Nicola.s,  iv,  212,  317, 

sheriff  of  Bedfordshire  and  Buckingham-  etc.)     .Vs  a  special  honour  he  was  given 

shire  in  1422,  142S,  and  1432,  member  of  the  custody  of  the  cai)turcd  duke  of  Or- 

parliament  for  Bedfordshire  in  1425  and  leans  {ibid.  156).     .\lthough  there  was  a 

1432,  ju.stice  of  the  peace  in  Bedfordshire  Richard  Cornwall  at  the  time  of  this  case, 

in  1435  and  1437,  commissioner  of  oyer  his  lordship  died  leaving  no  heir  in  1444 

and  terminer,  etc.     {Cal.  Pat.  RolU.)  "in  {Close  Roll,  22  Hen.  VI,  m.  12). 

the  pre.sent   affair  he  was  serving  on  a  "  .\n    esquire    of    Stratton     {Ancient 

special  judicial  commission  apart  from  the  Deeds,  iv,  A  8508),  justice  of  the  peace  in 

justices  of  the  peace.    See  Introd.  p.  cxii.  Bedfordshire  in  most  years  between  1424- 

"  The  certification  that   Wawton  and  48,  but  not  in  the  present  year  1438-39, 

his  fellow  justices  had  sent  to  the  king  of  member  of  parliament  for  the  shire  five 

the  Bedford  riot.    See  Introd.  p.  cxii.  times  between   1423  and   1442,   commis- 

"  Sir  John  Cornewaille  or  Cornwall,  a  sioner  in  1430-31   to  raise  a  loan  in  the 

knight  who  had  risen  from  obscure  origin  county  (Cal.  Pat.  51,   125),  etc.     At  his 

to  be  one  of  the  foremost  men  in  Bedford-  death,  which  is  reported  1456-57,  it  is  sur- 


EXAMINATION    INTO   THE    BEDFORD    RIOT  105 

Faunhopc.  He  was  asked  yd  thei  alio  kncwe  wcl  that  the  lord  Faunhope 
was  in  tlie  towne  of  Bedford  and  yif  thei  hadde  ony  spechc  of  him  aniongos 
theime  iiij""  and  to  all  this  he  answered  ye.  He  was  deniaunded  yif  he  sent 
to  the  lord  Fanhope  eny  word  of  thoire  beyng  there  to  gcders  or  warned 
him  that  thei  wolde  precede  in  the  cessions  or  clles  that  thei  taricd  unto 
his  comyng  to  euerich  of  this  he  answered  naj',  but  thei  iiij"  sat  downe  and 
procedc<l  not  to  the  sessions  but  conmiuned  to  gcdcrs.  He  was  asked  yif 
he  and  his  felaws  such  time  as  the  lord  Faunhope  come  to  theime  dcde 
him  eny  reucrence  or  what  countenance  thei  made,  he  seid  that  his  thre 
felaws  stode  up  and  he  sitting  stille  avaled  his  hode.  He  was  asked  hou 
the  lord  Faunhope  tlomcned  him  after  his  comyng  to  thcLme.  And  he 
answered  that  he  sat  him  doune  and  callid  to  him  John  Fitz  and  William 
Pek  "  and  willed  theime  to  sitte  downe  by  him  and  the  seid  Fitz  aduised 
the  lord  Faunhope  to  take  unto  him  Wawton  and  Enderby  for  thei  were 
aboue  the  seid  Fitz  in  the  commission,  and  the  seid  lord  Faunhope  answered 
theim  Nay  come  and  yee  will  the  toon  '*  shal  be  wolcome  the  tothcr  may 
chese;  and  this  communicacion  had  thei  sat  downe  to  giders.  He  was 
asked  hou  the  rumor  and  noyse  fill  amonges  theime.  He  answered  by 
oncurtcise  langage  betwene  John  Fitz  Geffray  "  and  a  seruant  of  the  lord 
Faunhops  the  whiche  the  seid  lord  Faunhope  bad  to  answere  to  that  the 
whiche  was  seid  unto  him,  and  the  same  seruant  forthwith  sauyng  the 
reuercnce  of  his  lord  seid  it  was  fals  and  so  lyued  the  seid  John  Fitz  Geffray, 
and  forthwith  Wawton  seith  that  he  seid  to  the  lord  Faunhope  it  is  the 
unmliest  session  that  I  haue  euer  sey  in  Bedford,  and  yif  it  be  not  other- 
wise reuled  I  wol  complaine  unto  the  kj'nges  counseill,  to  the  which  the 
lord  Faunhope  shulde  haue  seid,  complaine  as  yo  wole  y  defie  thi  manasing 
and  all  thine  euel  will.  Wawton  seide  he  answered  I  sette  litil  of  thi  defiance, 
and  with  this  there  was  rumor  and  noyse  in  the  halle,  and  soo  thei  rose  up 
bothe  the  lord  Faunhope  Wawton  Enderly  and  all  the  remenant,  and  the 
lord  Faunhope  stode  upon  the  cheker  borde,  the  whiche  borde  stode  afore 
the  benche.  He  was  asked  yif  he  sye  the  lord  Faunhope  drawe  eny  dagger, 
he  seid  forsothe  naj'.  He  was  asked  whether  he  sawe  eny  dagger  in  his 
hande,  and  he  seid  j^e.  Furthermore  he  was  asked  in  what  wise  he  helde 
the  dagger  in  his  hande,  the  point  forth,  viz.  foynyng,^"  or  ellis  the  point 
towardes  his  elbowe  downward,  and  to  this  he  said  he  wist  nat.  He  was 
also  asked  yif  he  sawe  the  lord  Faunhope  or  any  man  of  his  smite  eny  man 
or  made  ony  likly  countenaunce  to  smyte,  he  said  nay.    He  was  also  asked 

prising  to  find  no  lands  or  tenements  of  '•  of  Putnoe,  justice  of  the  peace  in  1437. 

his  in  Bedfordshire  or  Buckinghamshire  "  Pekke  or  Peck,  of  le  Hoo,  justice  of 

{Cal.  Ing.,  p.  m.,  iv,  276).  the  peace,  1437-40  and  1443. 

"  A  "  gentleman  "  of  Westhay,   com-  "   =  if  ye  will  the  one. 

missioner  in  1431  to  assess  a  grant  {Cal.  "  of  Thurleigh.    There  was  also  a  John 

Pai.  137),  named  in  1434  among  those  re-  Fitz  Geoffrey  the  younger,  both  involved 

quired  to  take  an  oath  not  to  maintain  in  the  riot.    Cal.  Pal.  Rolls,  282. 

breakers  of  the  peace  (ibid.  375),  justice  '"  =  thrusting. 
of  the  peace  in  1437  (ibid.  578). 


106  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

whether  the  lord  Faunhope  such  tyme  as  he  stode  upon  the  horde  labored 
to  the  cessing  of  the  rumor  and  debat  or  ellis  that  he  stured  and  moued  the 
pepil  to  rumor,  and  he  answered  that  he  labored  to  cesse  the  noyse  and  the 
rmnor  that  was  in  the  halle.  He  was  asked  wheder  he  labored  effectuelly 
or  ellis  faintly  and  under  colour  of  his  labore  soffred  harme  to  be  doo.  He 
answered  that  to  his  understandyng  he  labored  to  the  keping  of  pees,  and 
to  stynte  the  noyse  and  Rumor  that  was  in  the  halle  and  alsoo  diligently  as 
euer  he  sawe  man.  He  was  asked  what  the  seid  lord  Faunhope  dide  such 
tyme  as  the  noyse  was  cessed,  he  answered  that  he  went  unto  his  ynne  and 
with  his  oime  seruantz  lete  feleshipped  the  seid  Wawton  and  other  of  his 
felaws  unto  theire  logginges  for  theire  more  seuretee,  and  the  lord  Faunhope 
willed  Wawton  to  haue  come  dronken  with  him  as  he  hadde  Enderby, 
seyeng  to  Wawton  that  he  sholde  be  welcome  for  he  yaf  him  drink  whiche 
he  hadde  lesse  cause  to  loue  thanne  som  menyng  be  Enderby. 

John  Enderby  called  before  the  counsail  in  fourme  as  it  is  reherced  of 
Thomas  Wawton  in  like  wise  swore  upon  a  boke  ^'  to  sey  the  trouth  in  the 
mater  abouesaid,  the  which  he  promised  to  doo.  Examined  upon  the  first 
article  he  seide  at  the  tyme  of  makyng  the  certifieat  the  which  was  sent 
unto  the  kyng  his  felaws  and  he  were  in  difference  and  discorde  not  for 
than  he  sette  his  seal  therto.  As  to  the  secunde  to  the  thridde  to  the 
fourthe  to  the  fifte  to  the  vi*  and  to  the  vii''  articles  he  accorded  in  allc  his 
deposicion  and  answere  with  Thomas  Wawton.  As  to  the  viii°  he  seide 
that  thei  stode  up  alle  such  tyme  as  the  lord  Faunhope  come  to  theime. 
As  TO  the  ix"  and  the  x°  article  he  accorded  in  substance  with  the  seid 
Wawton,  confessing  alsoo  that  he  him  selfe  drewe  out  his  owne  dagger  and 
in  the  tyme  of  the  rumor  his  man  brought  him  a  swerd,  and  in  what  wise 
he  departed  from  his  dagger  he  can  not  sey.  As  to  the  xi*"  article  he  seith 
that  he  sawe  not  the  lord  Faunhope  to  drawe  ony  dagger,  neither  that  he 
hadde  eny  in  his  hande.  Examined  upon  the  xii"  and  the  xiii""  articles  he 
accorded  with  Thomas  Wawton  no  thing  varyeng  in  substance. 

John  Fitz  in  like  wise  as  Wawton  and  Enderby  sworn  upon  a  boke  and 
examined  ansvvcreth  as  it  foUoweth.  In  the  first  and  the  secunde  article 
he  accorded  with  Wawton.  In  the  thridde  the  iiij''  and  the  v*  and  the  sexte 
Articles  he  accorded  in  his  deposicion  with  Wawton  and  Enderby.  As  to 
the  vii  article  he  accorded  with  Enderby  and  not  with  Wawton.  As  to  the 
viii°  article  he  accorded  alsoo.  As  to  the  ix°  article  Ik;  accordith  with 
Wawton.  In  the  x"  article  he  accordith  with  Enderby  bothe  that  he  sawe 
the  lord  Faunhope  to  drawe  no  dagger  neither  that  he  hadde  eny  in  his 
hande.  In  the  xi''  and  xii''  articles  he  accordith  with  Wawton  and  Enderby. 
And  also  in  the  xiii*  article  nothing  chaungyng  in  substance. 

Harry  Etwell  examined  and  sworn  upon  a  boke  to  sey  trouth.  In  the 
first  article  he  accordith  with  his  felaws.     In  the  secunde  article  he  ac- 

"  A  copy  of  the  gospels  was  regularly  kept  in  the  Star  Chamber. 


EXAMINATION    INTO   THE    BEDFORD    RIOT  100 

cordcil  also  witli  his  fclaws  sauc  lie  varied  in  nomljrc  soyng  that  the  lord 
Faunhopc  conic  to  Bedford  with  xl  or  1  persones.  In  the  iij"  the  iiij"  the  v° 
articles  he  accordid  with  his  fclaws.  In  the  vii"  and  the  viii"  articles  he 
accorded  with  Enderhy.  In  thk  ix"  and  the  x°  articles  he  accordith  with 
Wawton.    In  the  xi''  xii"  and  xiii"  articles  he  accordith  with  his  fclaws. 

The  xxiiij''  day  of  Feuerer^^  the  yere  aboueseid  at  Westmynster  Thomas 
Stratton-'  undershercue  of  Bedford  in  the  presence  of  the  IukIi  and  niygti 
prince  the  Due  of  Gloucestre  the  Bisshop  of  Bath  Chaunceller  of  ICnghinde 
therle  of  Sarum  the  lord  Cromwel  tresorer  of  Englande,  the  lord  Hunger- 
ford,  William  Lyiidewod  keper  of  the  kynges  priuic  seal  the  kynges  coun- 
saillours,  swore  upon  a  bokc  to  make  trewe  and  juste  answere  in  that  shuld 
be  demanded  him  of  the  Ryot  doon  at  Bedford.  First  he  was  demanded 
yif  he  was  priue  of  the  certificat  that  was  made  unto  the  kyng  by  Wawton 
Enderby  Fitz  and  EtwcU,  and  he  scid  ye.  More  ouer  he  was  demanded 
where  he  sat  at  the  cession  tyme,  and  he  answered  at  the  lord  Faunhope 
sete  inasmoche  as  he  was  clerc  of  the  cessions.  He  was  asked  hou  the 
rumor  began,  and  he  therein  accorded  with  the  seyng  of  Wawton  and  so 
he  dede  in  alle  his  deposicions  sauyng  in  the  xi°  article  he  varied  from  alle 
seyeing  that  the  lord  Fanhope  suche  tyme  as  he  stode  upon  the  cheker  borde 
he  made  countenance  tow^ardes  Enderby  as  he  wolde  haue  smete  him,  but 
he  seith  he  smote  him  not.^* 

[Signed:]   Adam  Molei-ns.^ 

C 

To  the  kyng  oure  souerein  lord. 

Moste  louely  sheweth  unto  youre  highnesse  youre  humble  liegeman 
Johan  Cornewayir,  knyght,  lord  of  Faunh[ope].  Wher  .  .  .-^  unto  youre 
moste  noble  grace  for  riottis  that  haue  be  don  in  youre  shire  of  Bedford  by 
suche  as  oweth  him  .  .  .  desired  to  brynge  forth  the  trouthe  into  open 
knowliche,  upon  the  whiche  the  said  suppliantes  accusers  haue  b  ...  as 
they  had  put  certificatt  of  the  same  matiere  unto  your  highnesse,  upon 
whiche  he  besecheth  in  moost  louely  ...  to  comaunde  unto  your  Chaun- 
celler that  he  such  matiers  in  writyng  and  other  examinacion  that  hath  be 
had  a  .  .  .  chauncelrie  and  there  to  be  enacted  be  fore  yow  of  record,  and 
doo  put  in  exemplificacion  in  due  and  used  fourme  .  .  .  and  that  in  the 
worship  of  God  and  in  wey  of  charitee. 

"  Upon  this  day  there  was  a  large  at-  "  Clerk  of  the  council,  1436-42,  mem- 
tendance  of  lords  in  the  council,  which  ber  of  the  council  in  1443,  keeper  of  the 
was  transacting  other  business  in  the  usual  privy  seal  in  1444,  and  bishop  of  Chi- 
manner.  .\mong  those  present  was  Lord  Chester  1445-50.  He  has  a  characteristic 
Fanhope  himself.  Nicolas,  Proceedings,  signature  made  with  a  paraph  after  his 
V,  282.  name. 

"  of  Biggleswade.    Cal.  Pal.  282.  "  The  right-hand  edge  of  the  membrane 

"  Upon  the  outcome  of  the  affair  see  is  torn  away. 
Introd.,  p.  cxiv. 


107  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

[Endorsed:  — ]  The  kjTig  hath  graunted  this  bille  in  is  grete  consail  the 
xxiii  day  of  Feuerer  the  xvii  j'ere  of  is  regne,  commaunding  that  such  lordis 
as  were  present  att  the  examinacion  of  the  which  the  mater  is  comprised 
in  a  copj'e  hereto  annexed  shold  se  the  same  examinacion  that  it  were  truly 
ennacted,  the  which  they  haue  don,  and  more  over  after  the  king  chargeth 
that  the  keper  of  is  priuay  seel  by  warant  under  the  same  seal  commaunde 
the  Chaunceler  of  Englond  that  he  do  exemplifie  the  same  examinacion 
and  the  certificait  sende  unto  the  kynge  upon  the  same  mater  in  duwe 
forme." 

[Signed:]   Adam  Moleyns. 


GIFFARD  V.  MORTON' 

1444  Trusty  and  welbeloued.  For  asmoche  as  we  haue  understande  by  the 
supplicacion  of  our  welbeloued  Thomas  Gyffard  -  of  the  countee  of  Devon- 
shire How  the  sonday  in  the  feste  of  thinuencion  of  the  holy  crosse '  last 
passed  Isabelle  late  the  wyf  of  William  Forde  *  and  Johane  hir  doughtor  of 
the  age  of  xii  j'ere  cousin  to  the  said  Thomas  he  hauyng  the  gouernance 
aswel  of  the  said  Isabelle  as  the  warde  of  the  body  and  landes  of  the  saide 
Johane  thei  beyng  in  the  parissh  churche  of  Parkham  ^  in  the  foresaid 
countee  with  the  wif  *  of  the  forsaid  Thomas  her>-ng  theire  diuine  seruice  oon 
Richard  Morton  '  of  litell  Morton  in  the  countee  of  Cornewaille  gentihnan, 
John  Piers '  of  the  parissh  of  West  Potteford '  in  the  countee  of  Deuon- 
shire  aforesaid  husbondman  with  a  grete  multitude  of  people  unknowen, 
arraied  in  maner  of  werre  entred  in  to  ye  said  churche  and  made  assaute 
and  affray  upon  the  said  Isabelle  and  Johane  and  taken  by  the  same  Isa- 

"  The  exemplification  was  made,  as  has  '  Son  and  heir  of  John  Ford  who  held 

been  said,  and   its   tenor  stated   in   the  a  parcel  of  the  manor  of  Moreton  (Prince, 

letters  patent  of  7  March  granting  pardon  Worthies  of  Devon,  p.  314),  also  mentioned 

to  Lord  Fanhope  and  all  his  associates,  as  a  bailiff  of  William  Beauchamp,  sheriff 

Cal.  Pat.  17  Hen.  VI,  246.  of  Devon,  1439-40  (Cal.  Pat.  19  Hen.  VI, 

»  Council  and  Privy  Seal  (Exch.  T.  R.),  501). 

file  73,  8  May,  22  Hen.  VI.  '  A  notable  parish  in  Ilartland  in  the 

'  Descendant  of  Walter  Giffard  of  the  northwest  corner  of  the  county  bounded 

Norman    Conquest    through    a    younger  by  the  sea.     A  handsome  Gothic  church 

branch,    which    formed    a    well    known  dating  from  the  fifteenth  century  is  still 

Devonshire  family,  the  Giffards  of  Hals-  standing.     A  cliff  rising  above  the  sea  at 

bury   (J.  L.  Vivian,   Visitatio7i  of  Devon,  this  point  is  known  as  Clifford's  Jump, 

pp.  396-97).     This  Thomas  was  appointed  Polwhele, //t6(.  o/ Dcron.  iii.  419  n. 

in  1438   deputy  of    the  king's   butler  in  "  Her  name  is  given  as  Wilmot.  Vivian, 

the  posts  of  Barn,staple,  Ilfracombe,  and  op.  cit.;  Cal.  Pat.  22  Hen.  VI,  288. 

Bideford  {Cal.  Pal.  222),  and  in  1444  and  '  Mentioned    as    "  gentleman."      Cal. 

1445  served  on  commissions  of  inquisition  Pat.  288. 

in  the  county  (ibid.  338,  440).  '  A  husbandman.    Ibid. 

*  3  May,  1444.  '  West  Putford,  an  inland  parish  near 

Parkham  southwest  of  Bideford. 


GIFFARD    V.  MORTON  107 

bcllo  Johano  and  ye  wif  of  tlic  said  Thomas  for  roliouo  and  sccour  the  vcst- 
rary  of  tlio  said  cluirclu'  with  llio  dore  shottc  unto  tliciiii  tlie  said  niisdocrs 
felonousely  as  riottours  broking  the  same  dore  made  assaute  to  the  wif  of 
the  said  Tlionias  and  tho  said  Isabcllo  and  Johaiio  folonousoly  and  ayonst 
oiirt'  pecs  vanisshcd  and  laddc  away  and  yil  kcpi'th  thaiin  not  oonly  to  the 
hurt  harme  heuynesse  and  wrong  of  the  said  Thomas  and  his  wif  the  said 
IsaboHo  and  Johano  hut  also  unto  the  porillous  onsampio  corraging  cause 
and  occasion  of  other  Ukc  niisdocrs  to  doo  and  altcniptc  like  riott  or  worse 
in  tyme  comyng  on  lesse  than  shcrpe  and  due  punisshement  and  coreccion 
be  had  and  doon  in  tliis  behalf.'"  Wc  therefore  hauyng  consideracion  to 
the  premisses  willing  correccion  be  doon  in  this  partie  as  we  be  bounden 
to,  woll  an  charge  you  straitely  that  called  unto  you  suche  strength  as  shal 
seme  unto  you  necessaire  of  the  same  shire  ye  doo  take  and  arreste  the 
said  misdoers  and  all  other  of  whom  ye  shal  haue  knouliche  were  helpers 
unto  ye  said  riottes  in  what  shire  euer  thei  may  be  founde  wherto  we  yeue 
you  pouer  by  thces  ouro  letters,  and  thaim  so  arrested  and  tached  do  bring 
sauely  in  alle  possible  hast  before  us  and  oure  coimsail  where  so  euer  hit 
be  for  to  answere  to  the  mater  aboue  said.  And  in  cas  thai  may  not  be 
founde,  Wc  woll  that  ye  doo  make  proclamacion  in  suche  places  as  you 
shal  seme  good  that  the  said  misdoers  be  and  appere  be  foi-e  us  and  oure 
counsail  at  suche  a  day  as  shal  be  semed  unto  you  and  the  foresaid  Thomas 
to  be  asseigned  for  to  answer  to  suche  maters  as  shal  be  declared  unto  thaim 
at  theire  comyng  upon  the  feith  and  ligeance  that  thei  owe  unto  us  and 
also  that  ye  take  the  forsaid  Isabelle  and  Johane  wher  thei  may  be  foimd 
restoring  the  said  Isabell  to  hir  libertee  and  the  said  Johano  to  the  posses- 
sion of  the  said  Thomas  willing  furthermore  and  chargeing  you  that  ye  be 
attending  with  other  commissioners  with  whom  we  haue  assigned  you  by 
our  letters  vmdrc  ouro  greet  seel  to  sittc  and  enqucre  in  this  same  matere 
certifiyng  us  and  our  said  counsaill  as  wcl  of  thinquerre  by  thaim  and  you 
to  be  taken  in  this  partie  as  of  al  tho  persones  whiche  be  rebelle  or  contrary 
to  thexcucion  of  this  oure  commandement  and  we  wol  that  upon  the  paine 
of  v"  li.  ye  leue  not  this  in  no  wyse  yeuen  at  Westminster  the  viii  of  May  the 
yere,  &c.,  xxii. 

'"  Frequent  outrages  of  this  character  trary  to  their  likings,  or  otherwise  levy 

led  a  few  years  later  to  the  Statute  31  sums  on   their  lands  and   goods."     For 

Hen.  VI,  c.  9,  the  preamble  of  which  reads:  remedy  the  party  aggrieved  was  to  have 

". . .  in  all  parts  of  the  realm  diverse  people  a  writ  out  of  the  chancery  directing  the 

of  great   power,   moved  with   unsatiablc  sherilT  of  the  county  to  make  proclama- 

covetousness,  to  the  danger  of  all  ladies  tion  calling  such  persons  to  appear  before 

and  other  women  sole  having  lands,  etc.,  the   chancellor  or  before  the  justices  of 

will  take  them  by  force  or  otherwise  get  assize,    who    having   examined    into    the 

them  into  possession,  and  then  will  not  matter    might   annul   all   obligations    in- 

suffer  them  to  go  until  they  bind  them-  curred  in  this  manner  and  inflict  penalty 

selves  in  great  sums  by  obligations;    also  to  the  extent  of  £300. 
they  compel  the  women  to  marry  con- 


108  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

To  the  Chorrief  of  the  countee  of  Deuenshire.  Item  semblables  letters 
to  the  justices  of  pees  there,  sire  WiUiam  Bonevill "  knyght,  Wilham  Bour- 
chier  '^  Squier  and  William  Hendeston  "  mutatis  mutandis. 

viii  die  Maii  Anno  etc.  xxii.  Rex  apud  Westmonasterium  de  aduisa- 
mento  sui  concilii  mandauit  custodi  priuati  sigilli  litteras  fieri  facere  sub 
eodem  sigillo  secundum  formam  suprascriptam  presentibus  dominis  Car- 
dinali  Anglie,  Cancellario,  Episcopo  Bathon'  et  aliis.'^     [Sigiied:]    Kent.'^ 


RELEASE  OF  THE  SURETIES  OF  JOHN  T>X\Y' 

1450-1  Placita  coram  domino  Rege  in  Cancellaria  sua  apud  Westmonasterium 
vicesimo  quarto  die  Augusti  anno  regni  Regis  Henrici  sexti  post  conquestum 
vicesimo  octauo. 

Memorandum  quod  vicesimo  quarto  die  Augusti  anno  regni  Regis 
Henrici  sexti  \-icesuno  octauo  Willelmus  Raweh-n  -  de  London,  Brewer,' 
Adam  Turvey  de  London,  Brewer,  Thomas  Smyth  de  London,  Brewer, 
Willelmus  Nicholl  de  London,  Brewer,  lohannes  Wykeham  de  London, 
yoman,  et  Thomas  Mollesley  de  London,  Drover,  coram  eodem  Domino 
in  Cancellaria  sua  personaUter  constituti  manuceperunt  pro  lohanne  Davy 
de  London,  Brewer,  videlicet  quilibet  eorum  corpus  pro  corpore  et  sub 
pena  mille  librarum,  quod  idem  lohannes  Da^y  pereonaliter  comparebit 
coram  dicto  domino  Rege  in  Cancellaria  sua  predicta  vel  coram  consilio 
suo  super  debita  premunicione  eidem  lohanni  Da\'j'  ex  parte  domini  Regis 
supradicti  facienda,  ubicumque  idem  dominus  Rex  aut  chctum  consiUum 
suum  fore  contigerit  in  Angha,  ad  respondendxmi  super  hiis  que  sibi  ex 
parte  dicti  domini  Regis  obicientur  tunc  ibidem,  et  ad  faciendum  ulterius 
et  recipiendum  quod  Curia  nostra  considerauerit  in  hac  parte,  quam  quidem 
sumniam  quilibet  manucaptorum  ^  predictorum  concessit  de  terris  et 
cataUis  suis  ad  opus  dicti  domini  Regis  leuandam,  si  prefatus  lohannes 
Davy  coram  prefato  domino  Rege  in  Cancellaria  sua  predicta  vel  coram 
dicto  consiho  suo  in  forma  predicta  personaliter  non  comparuerit.  Et 
postea,  videlicet  vicesimo  octauo  die  Maii  tunc  proxime  sequentis  idem 
lohannes  T)a.\y  protulit  venerabili  patri  lohanni  Cardinali  et  Archiepiscopo 
Ebor',  Cancellario  Anglic,^  in  Cancellaria  predicta  quoddam  breve  predicti 

"  Steward  of  the   duchy  of  Cornwall  the  names  abo  of  John  Giffard  and  several 

1438-52  {Cal.  Pal.  30  Hen.  VI,  526),  jus-  others.    Cal.  Pal.  288. 

tice  of  the  peace  in  Cornwall,  1442-51,  in  "  Master  Thomas  Kent,  doctor  of  civil 

Somerset,  1441-42,  and  in  Devon,  1443-44.  and  canon  law,  probably  a  graduate  of 

'*  Of  Fitzwarren,  justice  of  the  peace  in  Cambridge,  and  reputed  for  his  learning. 

Shropshire,  1443-45,  and  in  Devon,  1444  He  was  either  an  unfrocked  clergj'man  or 

and  1447-51.  a  layman,  for  he  had  an  acknowledged 

"  Justice  of  the  peace  in  Devon,  1443-44  wife.    He  became  clerk  of  the  council  in 

and  1447-51.  1443,  at  the  same  time  that  he  was  made 

"  This  commission  to  inquire  into  the  secondary  clerk  in  the  oflBce  of  the  pri%'j' 

matter  was  issued  12  May;    it  included  seal  (ibid.  235);    he  was  appointed  sub- 


RELEASE    OF   THE    SURETIES    OF   JOHN    DAVY  108 

[Translation:  — ]  On  the  8th  of  May,  22n(l  year  etc.,  the  king  at  West- 
minster bj-  the  advice  of  his  council  conananded  the  keeper  of  the  privy 
seal  to  have  letters  issued  under  the  same  seal  according  to  the  form  written 
above,  there  being  present  the  lords  the  cardinal  of  England  chancellor,  the 
bishop  of  Bath  and  others.  [Signed:]   Kent." 

RELEASE  OF  THE  SURETIES  OF  JOHN  DAVY ' 

Pleas  before  the  lord  the  king  in  his  chancery  at  Westminster,  the  24th 
of  August  in  the  28th  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Henr\'  VI. 

Be  it  remembered  that  on  the  24th  of  August  in  the  28th  year  of  the 
reign  of  King  Henry  VI  William  Rawelyn  ^  of  London,  brewer,'  Adam 
Turvey  of  London,  brewer,  Thomas  Smith  of  London,  brewer,  William 
Nichol  of  London,  brewer,  John  Wykeham  of  London,  j-eoman,  and 
Thomas  Mollesley  of  London,  drover,  having  appeared  in  person  before 
the  said  lord  in  his  chancery,  gave  surety  for  John  Davy  of  London,  brewer, 
that  is  each  of  them  body  for  body  and  under  penalty  of  a  thousand  pounds, 
that  the  same  John  Davy  will  in  person  appear  before  the  said  lord  the 
king  in  his  aforesaid  chancery  or  before  his  council,  upon  due  warning  to 
be  given  to  the  same  John  Davy  on  the  part  of  the  aforesaid  lord  the  king, 
wherever  the  said  lord  the  king  or  his  said  council  shall  be  in  England,  to 
answer  for  those  things  which  shall  be  laid  against  him  there  on  the  part  of 
the  said  lord  the  king,  and  to  do  further  and  receive  what  our  court  shall 
determine  in  this  matter;  which  sum  indeed  each  of  the  aforesaid  main- 
pernors *  conceded  should  be  levied  from  their  lands  and  chattels  to  the 
use  of  the  said  lord  the  king,  if  the  aforesaid  John  Davy  shall  not  appear 
in  person  before  the  aforesaid  lord  the  king  in  his  aforesaid  chancery  or 
before  his  said  council  in  the  aforesaid  manner.  And  afterwards,  namely 
on  the  28th  of  May  next  following,  the  same  John  Davy  in  the  aforesaid 
chancerj'  offered  to  the  venerable  father  John  cardinal  and  archbishop  of 
York,  chancellor  of  England,*  a  certain  writ  of  the  aforesaid  lord  the  king, 

constable  in  1345  (ibid.  348).     In  1347  he  •  Placita  in  Cancellaria,  file  29,  no.  21. 
was  granted  the  lordship  and  manor  of  '  In  1458  he  was  given  an  as.signment 
Langley,    Co.    Kent,    formerly    held    by  of  £677,  19s.  7d.  out  of  the  farm  of  Cam- 
Cardinal  Beaufort  {Cal.  Pat.  22  lien.  VI,  bridge  for  ale  delivered  by  him  to  the 
244).    He  was  implicated  as  a  Yorkist  in  royal  household  {Cat.  Pat.  Holts,  430).    In 
Jack   Cade's   rebellion,   and   was   among  1462  he  was  one  of  the  supervisors  of  all 
those  indicted  in  1450  in  Kent  (Kingsford,  beer  brewers  in  England  (ibid.  75). 
Hist.Lil.of  16lhCeritury,p.36i).  Heseems          '  The   brewers  formed  a   gild   in   the 
to  have  stood  in  the  favour  of  Richard  fourteenth  century  and  were  incorporated 
Duke  of  York.     In   1458  he  shared  his  as  a  company  in  1437-38.   They  possessed 
offices  of  clerk  of  the  council  and  secondary  a  hall  in  Addle  Street,  Cheapside,  where 
of  the  privy  seal  with  a  younger  man  feasts  were  held.     W.  C.  Hazlitt,  Livery 
Richard  Langport  (Cat.  Pa'l.  425).    Like  rompanifs  o/ London  (1892),  pp.  380  f.;  P. 
several  of  his  predecessors  he  was  finally  H.  Ditchfield,  City  Companies,  pp.  199  f. 
admitted  to  membership  in  the  council.           *  On  mainprise,  see  p.  45,  supra. 
His  last  appearance  was  on  3  July,  1462  '  John  Kemp,  chancellor,  1450-54. 
(Tenants    v.    Waynflete,    infra),    and    his 
death  occurred  soon  after. 


109  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

domini  Regis  sub  priuato  sigillo  suo  eidem  Cancellario  directum  et  in 
filaciis  eiusdem  Cancellarie  residens  factum,  cuius  tenor  sequitur  in  hec 
verba.  Henry,  be  the  grace  of  God  KjTig  of  England  and  of  Fraunce  and 
Lord  of  Ireland,  to  the  most  reuerent  Fadyr  in  God  John,  Cardinall  and 
Archebusshop  of  York,  primat  of  England,  oure  Chanceller,  gretyng.  We 
haue  undirstonde  be  the  supplicacion  of  oure  welbelouyd  hege  John  Davy, 
Citezeyn  and  Brewer  of  our  Cite  of  London,  ho  we  that  not  long  a  goo  for 
as  moche  as  he  wold  not  agree  nor  consent  for  causes  resonable,  suche  as 
moued  hym,  that  oone  Gefiferey  Bokley,*  which  was  at  host  and  logged 
with  hym,  shuld  haue  his  doughtre  to  wyie,  the  said  Geffrey  of  malice  and 
euill  will  causid  the  said  John  Dauy  to  be  arrestyd  and  imprisoned,  surmyt- 
tyag  that  he  shuld  haue  said  diuers  wordis  ayenst  oure  estate  and  dignite, 
not  declarj^d  any  thjTig  in  especiall  what  the  wordes  shuld  be.  Wlieruppon, 
how  be  it  that  the  said  John  Dauy  neuer  thought,  as  he  sayth,  nor  said,  as 
we  bene  enformyd,  eny  thyng  of  us  otherwyse  tharme  a  trewe  hege  man 
oughte  to  thenke  or  saj',  yete  neuerthelesse  or  he  myght  be  take  to  bayle 
he  founde  surete  in  oure  Chauncere  be  fore  you,  as  it  is  said,  of  vi  ™  li.  to  be 
redye  att  all  tymes  to  answere  to  that  that  any  man  woll  sey  uppon  the 
said  surmyse  aj'enst  hjTn,  under  the  which  surete  he  j-it  so  stondcth,  unto 
grete  hurt  and  hinderj'ng  as  well  of  hj-m  as  of  them  that  were  and  bene 
borowes  and  sureteiis  for  hym  in  that  behalfe,  with  outj-n  oure  grace  be 
shewed  to  hym  in  this  partie.  "^Mierefore  we  consideryng  the  premissis  and 
that  no  man  seth  the  tjTne  of  arest  of  the  said  John  Da\-y  liiderto,  as  we 
be  credible  acertejTied,  hath  offerid  hym  selfe  any  thyng  to  declare  ayenst 
hj^m  in  the  mater  abouesaid.  We  will  and  charge  you  that  ye  do  openly 
and  solcmply  to  be  proclamed  in  oure  said  Chauncere,  that  if  any  man  can 
or  will  any  thyng  say  ayenst  the  said  John  Davy  in  the  matier  aboue  said, 
he  come  within  a  certeyne  day  resonable  by  you  to  be  lymyted,  and  he  shall 
be  hard,  and  if  so  be  that  the  said  day  so  to  be  lymeted  by  j-ou  commyng, 
withynne  the  which  nor  at  the  which  noo  man  allegge  declare  or  purpose 
any  thjTig  ayenst  the  said  John  touchyng  the  surmyse  aboue  rehersid,  we 
wyll  and  charge  you  that  thenne  ye  utterly  discharge  the  said  John  and 
his  borowes  and  euerych  of  them  of  the  surete  in  the  which  he  and  they 
bene  bounden  to  us  in  oure  said  Chauncery  for  the  cause  abouesaid,  and 
them  and  echo  of  them  relesse,  quytte  and  dysmysse  freely  out  of  our  said 
Court  for  that  cause  for  euermore.  Yeuen  under  our  priue  seall  at  West- 
minster the  xxvii  day  of  May  the  yerc  of  oure  raigne  xxix.  Cuius  quidem 
breuis  pretextu  prcfatus  Cancellarius  per  auisamentum  et  asscnsum  lustici- 
ariorum,  seruientum  predicti  domini  Regis  ad  legem  et  aliorum  peritorum 
de  consilio  suo  per  tros  dies  continuos  in  Cancellaria  predicta  soleinpniter 
proclamari  fecit  quod  si  quis  prefatum  doniinuni  Regem  vel  consilium 
suum  informare  vel  aliquid  pro  ipso  domino  Rege  erga  seu  contra  prefatum 

•  Mentioned  in  14.57  as  alias  Messager,  late  of  London,  receiving  a  pardon  of  out- 
lawry.   Cal.  Pat.  RolU,  353. 


RELEASE   OF  THE   SURETIES   OF   JOHN   DALY  109 

under  his  privy  seal  directed  to  the  same  chancellor  and  remaining;  in  the 
files  of  the  same  chancery,  the  tenor  of  which  is  in  the  following  words: 
Henry,  etc.   [See  opposite  page.] 


By  virtue  of  this  writ  the  aforesaid  chancellor  indeed  by  advice  and 
assent  of  the  justices,  the  serjeants-at-law  of  the  aforesaid  lord  the  king, 
and  other  learned  men  of  his  council  for  three  successive  days  caused  it  to 
be  solemnly  proclaimed  in  the  aforesaid  chancerj'  that,  if  anyone  wished 
to  inform  the  lord  the  king  or  his  council  or  to  allege  or  charge  anything  in 


110  CASES  BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

loharmem  IDavy  in  materia  supradicta  allegare  vel  obicere  vellet  in  Octabis 
Sancti  loliannis  Baptiste  proxime  jam  preteritimi  veniret  et  audiretur. 
Et  quia  proclamacionibus  predictis  ut  supradictum  est  solempniter  factis 
nullus  ad  Octabas  predictas  venit  ad  informandmn  dictmn  dominum  Regem 
nee  consilimn  sumn  seu  aliqiiid  pro  eodem  domino  Rege  versus  predictum 
lohannem  Da^y  in  materia  supradicta  allegandum  vel  obiciendum,  ideo 
predictus  lohannes  Davy  per  dictum  dominum  Cancellarimn  et  auctoritate 
breuis  predicti  dimissus  est  de  Curia  Cancellarie '  supradicta  quietus  sine 
die,  ipseque  et  manucaptores  sui  in  hac  parte  occasione  premissorum  peni- 
tus  inde  exonerantur  et  eorum  quilibet  exoneratur,  etc. 


HEYRON  V.  PROUTE  AND  OTHERS ' 

1463  ^*5^  imiuersis  Christi  fidelibus  ad  quos  presentes  littere  peruenerint 
salutem.  Ad  imiuersitatis  vestre  noticiam  deduci  volumus  per  presentes 
quod  dudum,  videlicet  anno  incarnacionis  dominice  Millesimo  quadringen- 
tesimo  sexagesimo  coram  dominis  consiliariis  magni  %'idelicet  consiUi ' 
Henrici  nuper  gerentis  se  pro  Rege  Anglie  post  conquestimi  sexti  in  posses- 
sione  eiusdem  regni  tunc  de  facto  existentis  ad  audiendum  terminandum 
et  decidendum  causas  questiones  et  controuersias  quascumque  in  dicto 
regno  pro  tempore  motas  iudicibus  competentibus  mota  fuit  et  a  diu  pen- 
debat  atque  de  presenti  pendet  indecisa  quedam  causa  siue  querela  spolia- 
cionis  seu  subtraccionis  certarmn  lananun  Ricardi  Heyron '  quondam 
ciuitatis  nostre  London'  et  mercatoris  stapule  ville  nostre  Cales'  ac  certarum 
injuriarum  eidem  Ricardo  Heyron  per  lohannem  Proute  *  lohannem 
Walden  lohannem  Tate  '  et  alios  merca tores  stapule  predicte,  ut  asseritur, 
factarmn  et  illatarum,  in  qua  quidem  causa  per  partem  predicti  Ricardi 
Heyron  proposita  et  ministrata  fuit  quedam  peticio  contra  dictum  lohan- 
nem Proute,  locum tenentem  majoris  stapule  predicte,  et  alios  mercatores 
eiusdem  cujus  tenor  talis  est:   Lamentably  compleyneth  unto  j-our  good 

'  On  the   court   of   chancery  and  its  'On  the  use  of  the  term  "great  council," 

relation  to  the  council,   see  Introd.   pp.  meaning  not  necessarily  a  lairge  council 

xxiii-xxv.  but  rather  a  council  of  great  men,  which 

'  Council  and  Privy  Seal  (Exch.  T.  R.),  might  also  be  a  pri\'j-  council,  e.  g.  magnum 

file  89,  5  March,  3  Ed.  IV.    An  exemplifi-  ei  setrelum  consilium,  see  The  King's  Coun- 

cation  is  in  the  Patent  Roll,  3  Ed.  IV,  i,  cil,  pp.  108  f. 
mm.  2-1,  from  which  illegible  portions  of 
the  record  have  been  supplied. 


HEYRON  V.  PROUTE  AND  OTHERS  110 

behalf  of  the  said  lord  the  king  against  the  aforesaid  John  Davy  in  the 
aforesaid  matter,  he  should  come  on  the  following  octaves  of  St.  John  the 
Baptist  now  passetl  and  be  heard.  And  since,  the  aforesaid  proclamations 
having  been  solemnly  made,  as  has  been  tokl  above,  no  one  came  on  the 
aforesaid  octaves  to  inform  the  aforesaid  lord  the  king  or  his  council  or  to 
allege  or  charge  anything  in  behalf  of  the  same  lord  the  king  against  the 
aforesaid  John  Dax'y  in  the  aforesaid  matter,  so  the  aforesaid  John  Davy 
was  dismissed  by  the  said  lord  chancellor  and  by  authority  of  the  aforesaid 
writ  from  the  aforesaid  court  of  chancery  ^  acquitted  sine  die,  and  he  and 
his  mainpernors  in  this  part  by  reason  of  the  premises  are  entirely  released 
therefrom  and  each  of  them  is  released,  etc. 

HEYRON  V.   PROUTE  AND  OTHERS ' 

1463  The  king  to  all  faithful  in  Christ  to  whom  these  letters  shall  come  greet- 
ing. We  wish  it  to  be  brought  to  the  notice  of  you  all  that  in  the  year  of 
the  Incarnation,  1460,  before  the  lords  councillors  of  the  great  council '  of 
Henry  VI  recently  acting  as  king  of  England,  who  was  then  in  de  facto 
possession  of  the  same  realm  for  hearing,  terminating,  and  deciding  what- 
ever causes,  questions  and  controversies  were  moved  in  the  said  realm  for 
the  time,  there  was  moved  before  competent  judges  a  certain  cause  or 
quarrel,  and  is  still  pending,  touching  the  spoliation  or  sequestration  of 
certain  wools  belonging  to  Richard  Heyron,'  formerly  a  citizen  of  our  city 
of  London  and  merchant  of  the  staple  of  our  town  of  Calais,  touching  also 
certain  injuries  committed  and  inflicted,  as  it  is  alleged,  upon  the  said 
Richard  Heyron  by  John  Proute,'*  John  Walden,  John  Tate,'  and  other 
merchants  of  the  aforesaid  staple;  in  tliis  cause  a  certain  petition  on  the 
part  of  the  aforesaid  Richard  Heyron  against  the  said  John  Proute  lieu- 
tenant of  the  mayor  of  the  aforesaid  staple,  and  other  merchants  was  pre- 
sented and  delivered,  the  tenor  of  which  is  as  follows:  "  Lamentably 
compleyneth,"  etc.   [See  following  pages.] 

'  On  the  complainant  and  his  20  years  French  Rolls  {Dep.  Keeper's  Report,  xlviii), 

of  litigation  see  Introd.,  pp.  cxiv-cx\'i.  448-449. 

*  Lieutenant  of  the  mayor  of  the  staple,  '  Mentioned  as  lieutenant  of  the  staple 

himself  mayor  of  the  staple  and  treasurer  in   1482.     Cely  Papers   {Roy.  Hist.  Soc. 

of  the  town  of  Calais  in  1470-71.     Cal.  Camden  Ser.  [1900]),  125. 


Ill  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

gracious  lordships  and  grete  wisdoms  your  humble  suppliaunt  Richard 
Heyron,  merchaunt,  oon  of  the  felaschip  of  marchauntz  of  the  staple  late 
at  Calays,  that  where  yoiu-  seid  suppliaimt  haujTig  grete  aquejTitance  with 
diuerse  merchauntz  estraungers  repajTyng  to  Calays  aforesaid  trusted 
with  the  grace  of  God  to  haue  had  good  and  redye  sale  and  utteraunce  of 
such  woUes  as  he  wold  schippe  and  sende  thidre  in  somere  last  past  bought 
of  diuers  men  within  this  reamme  of  Englond  woUes  of  grete  and  notable 
value  for  parte  of  which  woUes  youre  seid  suppliaunt  satisfied  and  paied 
in  hande  and  for  the  residue  therof  endaungered  ^  hj-m  to  his  frendys  and 
with  their  helpe  and  socour  found  suiSciant  suretee  to  pay  and  contente 
such  persones  as  the  seid  wolles  were  bought  of  at  certejTi  dayes  betwj'xt 
them  accorded  and  afterward  assured  our  said  souerajTi  lorde  of  all  maner 
devours  to  hym  in  any  wA"se  therof  pertejTijTig  and  theruppon  afterward 
schipped  the  seid  wolles  in  the  porte  of  London  ther  lawfully  customed  and 
eoketted  and  from  thens  sent  the  seid  wolles  to  Calays  aforesaid  and  ther 
solde  parceU  of  the  saide  wolles  to  diuers  marchauntz  estraungers  and  was 
in  wey  of  redie  utteraunce  and  sale  of  all  the  residue  therof.  \Mieruppon  oon 
John  Proute  the  xiij  day  of  Octobre  last  past  then  and  yett  Ueutenant  of 
John  Thriske  Claire  of  the  seid  Estaple  hamTig  hys  full  power  with  in  the 
seid  Estaple  in  his  absence  by  the  colour  of  his  office  and  with  thassent 
of  the  Marchauntz  of  the  seid  Staple  then  beyng  at  Calays" aforeseid  and  of 
the  factours  of  other  marchauntz  of  the  seid  Estaple  maliciously  disposed 
made  a  restrancte  withoute  any  cause  resonable  of  the  sale  and  utteraunce 
of  all  the  residue  of  all  the  seid  wolles  which  residue  amounteth  to  the  value 
therof  xiii"^  marcs  sterlings  and  more  and  wold  not  suffer  your  seid  suppli- 
aimt to  uttre  or  sell  any  parcells  therof  but  utterly  putt  and  estraunged 
hjTn  from  the  rule  and  gouemaunce  therof  and  commaunded  all  maner 
broucours  wej-ers  porters  tresourers  clerkys  and  other  officers  of  the  seid 
Staple  to  whom  it  apperteyneth  bj'  reason  of  ther  offices  to  haue  any  interest 
medelee '  or  ouersyght  of  sale  and  utteraunce  of  the  wolles  ther  that  they 
in  noo  wj-se  shuld  suffer  but  utterly  lett  and  restraine  the  sale  or  utteraunce 
of  the  same  wolles  fer  which  cause  the  seid  wolles  ben  yet  as  bj'  youre  seid 
supphaunt  unuttred  and  he  full  piteously  there  endurest  in  sore  and  strecte 
prison  by  the  meanes  of  the  seid  Ueutenant  and  other  marchauntz  and 
factours  there  so  that  he  may  neither  be  at  his  large  ne  libertee  to  come 
speke  write  nothir  sende  to  any  of  his  frendis  for  his  help  and  rehef  in  the 
premisses  but  utterly  is  put  from  the  rule  and  gouemaunce  of  the  same, 
howe  be  it  that  your  seid  supphaunt  at  the  fyrst  restraj-nte  of  the  same 
offred  to  fj-nde  suflBciant  suerte  within  the  saide  Staple  sufficiently  to 
answer  to  all  matiers  that  coude  be  obiected  ayenst  h>-m  ther  or  in  Eng- 
londe  by  reason  of  the  seid  Wolles  or  eny  parcell  therof  and  such  merchauntz 

*  =  indebted.    The  wool  was  commonly  paid  for  by  bills  due  at  six  months.    Cely 
Papers,  p.  xiii. 


HEYRON    V.  PROUTE   AND    OTHERS  111 

[Text  continued  from  opposite  page.] 

estraungers  as  he  commoned  withall  ther  for  the  sale  and  utteraunce  of  the 
same  woUes  put  from  such  bargayncs  as  they  trusted  to  have  had  thcrin  to 
the  great  infamye  myscredence  and  unportaVilc  hurt  of  youre  seid  supph- 
aunt  and  to  the  grete  charge  of  his  frendes  and  damages  of  your  said  suppii- 
aunt  of  xx""-  marcs.    Please  it  youre  seid  gooil  graceous  lordschips  and  grete 
wysdoms  the  premisses  tenderly  to  consider  and  forasmoch  as  your  seid 
suppiiaunt  hatii  no  remedy  for  the  premisses  after  the  cours  of  comon  lawe 
nor  none  may  have  ther  that  the  saide  Mair  and  other  Marchauntz  of  the 
saide  Staple  beyng  her  in  Englond  such  as  shalbe  thought  most  expedient 
in  this  behalf  may  be  compelled  by  privej'  Seal  or  otherwise  as  your  grete 
wisdoms  wull  assigne  personelly  to  aper  afore  your  seid  good  gracious  lorde- 
schips  att  a  certeyn  day  and  place  bj'  you  to  be  lymyted  ther  and  than  to 
answer  to  and  for  the  premisses  and  theruppon  to  prouyde  and  ordejTie 
such  remedye  and  redresse  therin  as  shall  be  thought  to  youre  gracious 
lordschips  most  conuenient  and  resonable  for  reformacion  of  the  same  att 
the  reuerence  of  God  and  in  wey  of  charite.    Also  please  it  your  seid  lord- 
schips to  remembr  that  the  saide  unlawfull  restraynte  was  made  in  maner 
and  fourme  aforeseid  after  such  tj-mc  as  by  the  grete  labour  and  suertee 
made  by  the  hole  felaschip  of  the  saiil  Staple  unto  our  seid  souerajTi  lord 
and  his  counsell  in  somere  last  passed  there  was  a  suertee  made  that  ther 
shuld  no  restraynte  be  made  of  any  sale  of  wolles  at  the  seid  Staple  the 
space  of  iii  yere  then  immediatly  folowyng.     Et  eidem  peticioni  prefati 
lohannes  "\\'alden  at  Johannes  Tate  Mercatores  Stapule  predicte  responde- 
bant  sub  sequenti  serie  verborum.    The  seid  John  Walden  and  John  Tate 
for  ther  answer  to  the  same  seuerelly  sejTi  that  the  mater  conteigned  in 
the  seid  byll  is  not  materiall  ne  sufficient '  to  put  them  to  answer  therto 
and  that  by  the  same  bill  ther  is  noo  wrong  trespas  ne  offence  surmitted 
to  be  don  to  the  seid  Richard  Heyron  by  them  in  any  wj'se  and  they  say 
moreouer  that  they  neuer  procured  stirj-d  abbetted  ne  executed  in  any 
maner  forme  any  restrajTite  to  be  made  of  the  wolles  of  the  same  Richard 
Heyron  specified  in  the  seid  bjdl  ne  of  eny  parcelle  therof  ne  of  the  sale  ne 
utterance  of  the  same  Wolles  ne  neuer  caused  procured  counseiled  ne 
stured  the  seid  Richard  Heyron  to  be  taken  arrestyd  emprisoned  or  put  in 
duresse  in  any  wise  all  the  which  matiers  they  be  redy  to  verify  by  all  means 
lawfull  and  convenient  wherfore  they  pray  to  be  discharged  of  their  vexa- 

'  A  demurrer  of  insufficiency,  a  plea  beneath  the  dignity  of  the  court.    If  the 

sometimes   meaning   that    the   court   has  plea  is  held  good,  the  defendant  may  be 

not  jurisdiction,  that  the  case  pertains  to  dismissed  with  costs.    In  the  present  case 

the    common    law    or    the    ecclesiastical  the  petitioner  was  required  to  amend  his 

courts;   or  it  may  mean,  as  in  the  present  bill.     For  further  examples  see  Leadam, 

case,  that  the  bill  is  lacking  in  substance,  Star  Chamber,  i,  xxix,  12,  20,  59,  160. 
uncertain,  or  wanting  in  legal  words,  or 


112  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

cion  by  colour  of  the  seid  bill  as  lawe  reson  and  conscience  requireth.     Et 
postea  pars  dicti  Ricardi  HejTon  quandam  aliam  peticionem  contra  pre- 
dictos  lohannem  Proute   lohannem  Walden   lohannem  Tate   Rogerum 
Knyght  WiUelmum  Holte  Ricardum   Cely  *  et  Willelmum  Broun  ]Mer- 
catores  Stapule  predicte  dedit  et  ministrauit  huiusmodi  sub  tenore,  Lament- 
ably complajTieth  unto  your  good  gracious  lordschips  and  gi-ete  wysdoms 
your  humble  suppHaiint  Richard  HejTon  Marchaunt  oon  of  the  felaschip 
of  the  ^Marchauntz  of  the  Staple  late  at  Calays  that  wher  your  seid  sup- 
pUaunt  haujTig  grete  aquejTitance  with  diuers  ^Nlarchauntz  estraungeres 
repajTjTig  to  Calays  aforeseid  trusted  with  the  grace  of  God  to  haue  had 
good  and  redy  sale  and  utteraimce  of  such  wolles  as  he  wold  schip  and  send 
thider  in  Somere  last  passed  bought  of  djiiers  men  within  this  r^ame  of 
England  wolles  of  great  and  notable  value  for  parte  of  which  wolles  youre 
saide  suppHaimt  satisfied  and  paied  in  hande  and  for  the  residue  therof  en- 
daungerj-d  hjTU  to  his  frendys  and  with  their  helpe  and  socour  fonde  suffi- 
cient suerte  to  pay  and  contente  such  persones  as  the  seid  wolles  were 
bought  of  at  certejTi  dayes  betwixt  them  accorded  and  afterward  suffi- 
ciently assured  oure  seid  souerajTi  lorde  of  all  maner  devoirs  to  hyra  in 
any  wyse  therof  pertej-nj-ng  and  theruppon  afterward  schipped  the  said 
wolles  in  the  porte  of  London  ther  lawfully  custimied  and  coketted  and 
from  thens  sente  the  seid  wolles  to  Calays  aforeseid,  and  there  sold  parcell 
of  the  seid  wolles  to  dj^ers  Marchaimtz  estraimgiers  and  was  in  wey  redy 
utterance  and  sale  of  all  the  residue  therof  wheruppon  oon  John  Proute  the 
xiii""  day  of  October  last  passed  thanne  and  yett  Ueutenant  of  John  Thriske 
Mayre  of  the  said  Staple  haujTig  his  full  power  within  the  said  Staple  in 
his  absence  by  colour  of  his  office  by  the  commaimdement  sturj-ng  pro- 
curjTig  and  assente  of  the  said  Maire  John  Walden  John  Tate  Rogier 
Knyght  of  Lincoln  WiUiam  Holte  of  London  Richard  Cely  of  the  same 
and  William  Broun  of  Stamford  Marchauntes  of  the  saide  Staple  and  the 
factours  of  them  and  the  factours  of  other  iSIarchauntz  of  the  said  Staple 
then  bejTig  at  Calaj-s  maliciously  disposed  at  Calays  aforeseid  made  a 
restraj-nte  withoute  eny  cause  resonable  of  the  sale  and  utteraunce  of  all 
the  residue  of  the  seid  Wolles  which  residue  was  cclx  sarplers  of  Cottiswold '" 
wolle  and  xv  sarplers  of  Clyft"  wolle  amoimtj-ng  to  the  value  of  xiii^ 
marcs  sterlings  and  more  and  woU  not  suffre  your  saide  suppUaunt  to  uttre 
or  sell  any  parcell  therof  but  utterly  putt  and  estraunged  hjTti  for  the  rule 
and  gouernaunce  therof  and  commaundyd  all  maner  brocours  weyers 
porters  tresoures  clerkys  and  other  officers  of  the  said  Staple  to  whom  it 
appertejTieth  by  reason  of  ther  offices  to  haue  any  interest  medlee  or  ouer- 

'  Head  of  the  famous  family  of  mer-  shire  where  one  of  the  best  grades  of  wool 

chants,  who  lived  to  the  end  of  the  year  was  produced.    Ibid,  xxxviii. 

1481.    Cely  Papers,  vi.  "  Believed  to  be  CUve,  Cleeve,  or  Bish- 

"  The  Cotswold   hills   in   Gloucester-  op's  Cleeve  in  Gloucestershire.    Ibid.  161. 


HEYRON  V.   PROUTE  AND  OTHERS  112 

[Text  continued  from  opposite  page.] 

syght  of  sale  or  utteraunce  of  wolles  ther  that  they  in  no  wyse  shuld  suffre 
but  utterly  lette  and  restrayne  the  sale  and  utteraunce  of  the  said  wolles 
for  which  cause  the  seid  wolles  be  yett  as  your  scid  suppliaunt  unuttrcd 
and  he  full  piteuously  then  and  ther  endurest  in  sore  and  streite  prison 
and  yett  is  by  the  meancs  and  sturyng  of  the  seid  Maire  lieutenant  John 
Walden  John  Tate  Roger  Knj'ght  William  Holte  Richard  Cely  and 
WilHani  Broun  and  the  said  factours  ther  so  that  he  may  neither  be  at  his 
large  ne  libertee  to  come  speke  write  or  sende  to  any  of  his  frendys  for  his 
help  and  releff  in  the  premisses  but  utterly  ys  put  from  the  rule  and  gouer- 
naunce  of  the  same  howe  be  it  that  your  seid  suppliaunt  at  the  fyrst  re- 
strainte  of  the  seid  wolles  offred  to  fynde  sufficient  suertee  within  the  seid 
Staple  sufficiently  to  answer  to  all  matiers  that  coude  be  obiected  ayenst 
hym  ther  or  in  Englonde  by  reason  of  the  said  wolles  or  any  parcell  therof 
and  such  Marchauntz  estraungers  as  he  commoned  withall  ther  for  the 
sale  and  utteraunce  of  the  same  wolles  put  from  such  bargej^ns  as  they 
trusted  to  haue  had  therin  to  the  grete  infamye  myscredence  and  unport- 
able  hurte  of  your  said  suppliaunt  and  to  the  grete  charge  of  his  frendes 
and  damages  of  your  seid  Suppliaunt  of  xx""-  marcs.  Please  it  your  gracious 
lordschips  and  grete  wysdoms  the  premisses  tendyrly  to  consider  and  for 
as  moch  as  your  said  suppliaunt  hath  not  remedy  for  the  premisses  after 
the  cours  of  the  comen  lawe  ne  non  may  haue  there  that  the  seid  Maire 
John  Walden  John  Tate  Rogier  Knyght  William  Holte  Richard  Cely 
and  AVilliam  Broun  may  be  compelled  by  writtes  or  by  letters  of  prive  seall 
or  otherwyse  as  your  grete  wysdoms  wolle  assigne  personally  to  aper  afore 
your  said  good  gracious  lordschips  at  a  certayn  day  and  place  by  you  to  be 
lymyted  ther  and  then  to  answer  to  and  for  the  premisses  and  theruppon 
to  prouyde  and  ordeigne  such  remedie  to  your  said  suppliaunts  therin 
accordyng  to  the  statute'^  in  such  cas  prouyded  and  ordeigned  as  shall 
be  thought  by  your  said  gracious  lordschips  conuenient  and  resonable 
and  this  for  the  love  of  God  and  in  wey  of  charite.  Cui  quidem  peticioni 
dicti  lohannes  Walden  lohannes  Tate  separatim  respondebant  negatiue 
in  scriptis  prout  sequitur.  Wher  it  is  supposed  by  the  same  bill  that  oon 
John  Prout  lieutenant  of  John  Thriske  Maire  of  the  Staple  of  Calays  the 
xiij  day  of  October  last  passed  by  colour  of  his  office  by  the  commaunde- 
ment  sturjTig  procuryng  and  assent  of  the  Maire  John  Walden  John  Tate 
and  other  named  in  the  same  bill  Marchauntes  of  the  saide  Stapel  then 

"  The  Statute  27  Hen.  VI,  c.  2,  pro-  of  England  and  the  king's  council  shall 

vides  that  no  man  shall  be  excluded  of  his  not  be  excluded  from  redressing  the  faults 

lawful  suit  by  writ  of  error,  of  any  judg-  of  the  said  mayor  and  constables  under 

ment  given  before  the  mayor  and  con-  the  Statutes  27  Ed.  III. 
stables  of  Calais,  and  that  the  chancellor 


113  CASES   BEFORE    THE   KING'S    COUNCIL 

bejTig  at  Calays  made  a  restraynte  at  Calays  aforeseid  of  the  sale  and  utter- 
aunce  of  ccLx  Sarplers  of  Cottiswolde  wolle  xv  sarplers  of  Clj^te  woll  of  the 
seid  Richard  Heyron  amountjTig  to  the  value  of  xiii™-  marcs  Sterlings  and 
more  and  wolde  not  suffer  hym  to  uttre  to  sell  any  parcells  therof  but 
utterly  put  and  estraunged  hjTii  fro  the  rule  and  gouernaunce  therof  and 
commaunded  all  maner  of  brocours  wej'ers  porters  tresourers  Clerkys  and 
other  officers  of  the  seid  Staple  that  they  in  noo  wj'se  shuld  suffer  but  utterly 
let  and  restrajTie  the  said  sale  and  utteraunce  of  the  said  wolles  thereto  the 
seid  John  Walden  and  John  Tate  seuerally  answer  and  say  that  they  com- 
maunded not  stured  ne  procured  in  any  wise  the  said  Proute  or  any  other 
person  to  make  anj^  restrancte  of  the  sale  and  utteraunce  of  the  saide 
wolles  or  of  anj'  parcell  therof  or  of  eny  other  thinge  to  be  don  in  lett  of 
the  sale  and  utteraunce  of  the  same  wolles  or  of  any  parceU  therof  ne  therto 
in  anj-  wise  assented  And  that  thej'  neuer  put  ne  estraunged  the  said 
Richard  Heyron  from  the  rule  and  gouernaunce  of  the  saide  wolles  or  of 
any  parcell  therof  ne  willed  ne  caused  any  restraynte  to  be  made  of  the 
seid  sale  and  utteraunce  of  the  same  Wolles  or  of  eny  parcelles  therof  ne 
commaunded  stured  procured  caused  ne  willed  the  saide  Proute  or  any 
other  persone  to  make  eny  restrainte  or  lett  of  the  utteraimce  sale  rule  and 
gouernaunce  of  the  same  wolles  or  of  any  parcell  therof.  Also  wher  it  is 
supposed  by  the  said  byll  that  the  seid  Richard  Heyron  at  Calays  was  and 
is  endurest  in  sore  and  strecte  prison  by  the  menes  and  sterjTig  of  the  said 
Maire  John  Walden  John  Tate  and  other  therto  the  seid  John  Walden  and 
John  Tate  as  aboue  answer  and  say  that  they  in  noo  wj'se  be  gj'lty  ne 
defectif  of  the  imprisonement  of  the  seide  Richard  Heyron  ne  of  the  trespas 
wronge  ne  offense  surmitted  to  be  doon  hym  by  the  same  bill  all  which 


HEYRON  V.   PROUTE  AND  OTHERS  113 

[Text  continued  from  opposite  page.] 

matieres  thay  be  redy  to  varyfe  by  weys  and  meanes  resonable  wherfore 
they  pray  to  be  dysmyssed  of  the  seid  sute  as  reason  and  conscience  re- 
quireth.  Et  postmo(hiin  pars  dicti  Kicardi  Hcyron  contra  responsioncm 
huiusmodi  dicti  lohannis  Waldcn  lohannis  Tate  et  aliorum  cum  eo  supcrius 
nominatorum  replicauit "  in  scriptis  prout  sequitur.  The  seid  Richard 
Hoyron  scith  that  the  seid  John  Walden  and  John  Tate  with  the  romanaunt 
named  in  the  bill  of  the  seid  Richard  Ileyron  commaunded  stored  and  pro- 
cured the  seid  John  Proute  to  make  the  restraynte  of  the  sale  and  utter- 
aunce  of  the  seid  cclx  sarplcrs  of  Cottyiswold  woll  and  xv  Sarplers  of  Clyft 
woU  as  it  is  specified  in  the  bill  of  the  seid  Richard  antl  also  caused  a  re- 
strainte  to  be  made  of  the  sale  or  utterance  of  the  same  wolles  and  stured 
procured  and  caused  the  same  John  Proute  and  the  seid  officers  specified  in 
the  seid  bill  of  the  seid  Richard  to  make  restraynte  and  lette  the  utterance 
sale  rule  and  gouernaunce  of  the  same  wolle  in  maner  and  forme  as  is  sup- 
posed by  the  seid  bill  and  also  they  be  gylty  of  the  durest  of  enprisonnment 
of  the  seid  Richard  hke  as  he  hath  surmj'tted  in  his  seid  bill.  And  also 
they  be  gulty  of  all  the  trespas  wronges  and  offenses  surmytted  by  the  bill 
of  the  seid  Richard  Hayron  in  maner  and  fourme  as  bj'  the  same  bill  is 
supposed,  the  which  maticrs  and  euerich  of  theim  shalbe  proved  by  all 
such  meanez  as  shalbe  thought  to  your  seid  lordshippez  resonable  and  for- 
asmoch  as  they  withsey  not  by  dedez  and  actez  of  their  factours  all  that 
tjTne  bej'ng  at  Calj's  the  seid  Richard  praith  that  gode  and  hasty  remedy 
maybe  had  in  the  premissez  for  the  loue  of  god  and  yn  way  of  cheryte. 

"  Replications    are    not    often    found.      any  new  allegations,  they  were  apt  to  be 
Since  they  were  not  permitted  to  contain      merely  perfunctory. 


114 


CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 


Sicque  causa  huiusmodi  inter  partes  et  personas  antedictas  ut  premittitur 
mota  in  dicto  regno  nostro  Anglie  cepta  adhuc  de  presenti  coram  nobis  et 
prefatis  donunis  consiliariis  magni  consilii  nostri  pendet  indecisa,  prout  de 
premissis  omnibus  et  singulis  ex  processu  et  recordo  actisque  in  ea  parte 
factis  et  habitis  euidenter  et  notorie  liquet.  Nosque  et  domini  eonsiliarii 
magni  consilii  nostri  dicti  regni  nostri  Anglie  ludices  in  hac  parte  compe- 
tentes  sumus  et  omni  tempore  erimus  prompti  et  parati  partibus  predictis 
in  premissis  et  ea  concernentibus  quibuscumque  iusticie  facere  comple- 
mentum.  Que  omnia  et  singula  premissa  ad  omnem  iuris  effectum  qui 
exinde  sequi  poterit  vobis  omnibus  et  singulis  significamus  notificamus  et 
intimamus  per  presentes.  In  cuius  etc.  Datum  etc.  [Teste  Rege  apud 
Westmonasterium  quinto  die  Marcii. 

per  breve  de  pruiato  sigillo  et  de  dato  etc.] 
In  palacio  sue  Westm'  quinto  die  Marcii  anno  etc.  tercio  Rex  de  auisa- 
mento  sui  consilii  voluit  et  mandauit  custodi  priuati  sigilli  sui  fieri  facere 
litteras  sub  eodem  sigillo  domino  Cancellario  Anglie  dirigendas  mandando 
eidem  cjuatinus  sub  magno  sigillo  fieri  faciat  litteras  patentes  secundum 
tenorem  suprascriptum.  Presentibus  Dominis  Cancellario,"  London','* 
NorwicenV^  Elien',"  Lincoln','*  Warr',''  Priore  Sancti  lohannis,^"  Has- 
tynges,2'  Cromwell,''^  Ryuers,"  Dacre,"  Ruthyn,"  Wenlok',^^  Mountacu,=^ 
etc.  [Signed:]  Langport.-* 


TENANTS  V.  WAYNFLETE ' 

1462        R.  E.2    BythekTng. 

Trusty  and  welbeloued.  Howe  it  be  that  upon  the  complaintes  made 
by  the  tenantes  of  the  Reuerent  fadre  in  God,  the  Bishop  of  Wynchestre,' 
and  in  especiall  of  the  lordship  of  Estmeone  *  in  our  countee  of  Hampshire 
in  our  last  parlement,*  the  matiers  concernyng  the  said  complaintes  were 
rypely  examyned,  and  either  partie  herd,  as  ferre  as  they  or  any  of  thaym 
coude  shewe  or  allegge  for  himself.  And  finally  by  the  considcracion  of  the 
grete  proves  shewed  on  the  behalf  of  the  said  Reuerent  fadre  in  God,  and 
noon  resonable  matier  shewed  by  the  partie  contrarie  that  sholde  or  might 


"  George  Neville,  1461-66. 

'^  Thomas  Kemp,  V)ishop,  1450-89. 

i«  Walter  Lchert,  bishop,  1446-72. 

"  WilUam  Grey,  bishop,  1454-78. 

'8  John  Chcdworth,  Ijishop,  1452-71. 

"  Richard  Neville,  d.  1471. 

=»  Kol)crt  Botvll,  1439-69. 

='  William,  d.  1483. 

"  Humphrey  Bourihier,  d.  1471. 

2»  Richard  Woodville,  d.  1469. 

«  Richard  Fenys,  d.  1485. 

"  Edmund  Grey,  d.  1488. 

"  ,Iohn,  d.  1471. 

"  John  Neville,  d.  1471. 


"  Clerk  of  the  council,  23  July,  1461, 
granted  the  office  jointly  with  Thomas 
Kent,  sole  clerk  on  the  retirement  of  Kent 
in  1462  {Rot.  Pari,  v,  216;  Cal.  Pat.  126). 
He  is  mentioned  as  rector  of  Bradwell  in 
Essex  and  prebendary  of  St.  Mary  Ottery 
in  Devon,  and  in  1462  was  granted  the 
manor  of  Sonier,sbury  in  Surrey,  to  hold 
so  long  as  it  remained  in  the  king's  hands 
(Cal.  Pat.  SO,  170).  He  either  resigned  or 
was  dispossessed  of  the  office  at  the  ac- 
cession of  Henry  VII  (Leadam,  Star  Cham- 
ber, i,  12). 

'  Chancery  Warrants,  series  i,  file  1547. 


TENANTS   V.  WAYNFLETE  114 

And  so  this  cause  which  has  been  moved  hetween  the  aforesaid  parties 
and  persons,  as  previously  narrated,  and  hegun  in  our  said  reahn  of  Eng- 
land, still  at  present  pends  before  us  and  the  aforesaid  lords  councillors  of 
our  great  council  undecided,  as  is  made  evident  and  notorious  from  each 
and  every  point  in  the  foregoing  process  and  record  and  from  the  acts  done 
and  performed  in  this  matter.  We  indeed  and  the  lords  councillors  of  our 
great  council  of  our  said  realm  of  England  are  competent  judges  in  this 
matter  and  will  always  be  prompt  and  ready  to  give  the  aforesaid  parties 
full  measure  of  justice  in  the  premises  and  everything  relating  thereto. 
All  the  foregoing  statements  and  every  one  of  them  to  every  end  of  justice 
that  can  arise  we  signify,  announce,  and  impart  to  each  and  every  one  by 
the  present  (letters).  In  testunony  of  this,  etc.  Witness  the  king  at  West- 
minster on  the  fifth  day  of  March. 

By  writ  of  privy  seal  and  of  the  date,  etc. 

In  his  palace  at  Westminster  on  the  fifth  day  of  March,  in  the  third 
year,  etc.,  the  king  by  the  advice  of  his  council  willed  and  commanded  the 
keeper  of  the  privy  seal  to  have  letters  issued  under  the  same  seal,  which 
were  to  be  directed  to  the  lord  chancellor  of  England,  that  he  should  have 
letters  patent  issued  under  the  great  seal  according  to  the  tenor  written 
above.  In  the  presence  of  the  lord  chancellor,'''  the  bishops  of  London,'^ 
Norwich,'*  Ely,''  Lincoln,'*  the  earl  of  Warwick,"  the  prior  of  St.  John's,'"' 
lords  Hastings,^'  Cromwell,^^  Rivers,^'  Dacre,^''  Ruthin,"  Wenlock.^"  Monta- 
cute,"etc.  [Signed:]  Langport.-* 

TENANTS  V.  WAYNFLETE  {continued) 

exclude  hym  of  his  right  demaunded  of  his  said  tenantes,  it  was  aduised 
and  understande  that  the  said  tenantes  sholde  and  ought  to  paj^e  theire 
rentes  and  doo  and  continue  their  suetes,  seruices,  workes  and  custumes  to 
the  said  Reuerent  fader,  as  they  had  doon  in  tyme  passed,  as  more  atte 
large  is  conteygned  in  an  acte  therupon  made:  yit  that  notwithstandyng 
the  said  tenantes  have  not  only  not  doo  nor  observed  the  said  advisement; 
but  also  in  the  monethe  of  Maye  last  passed  complayned  unto  us  of  certaine 
of  their  neighbours  emprisoned  by  the  said  Reuerent  fadre.    Whereupon 

^  The  sign  manual  of  Edward  IV.  of  John  it  was  given  back  to  the  bishop. 

'  William  of  W.aynflete  or  Wainfleet,  The  bishops  built  a  palace  here  which  bc- 

bishop  of  Winchester,  1447-86.     For  the  came  their  favorite  residence.    It  was  one 

part  he  played  in  Jack  Cade's  rebellion,  of  the  largest  aiid  richest  manors,  where 

first   treating  with   the   rebels  and   then  vineyards  were  planted.    The  hundred  of 

punishing  them,  and  for  the  con.scquent  East    Meon    for    centuries    followed    the 

disturbances  in  Winchester  and  elsewhere,  descent  of  the  manor  and  is  famous  for 

see  Did.  Nat.  Biog.  its  active  life  into  modern  times.    Victoria 

•  East  Meon,  next  to  West  Meon,  in  Hist.  Hatiip.ihire,  i,  378;    ii,  63,  65. 
the  valley  of  the  Meon  River.    It  had  be-  '  Wherein  the  tenants  had  made  their 
longed  to  tlic  bishops  of  Winchester  in  complaints  and  argued  their  case.    A  de- 
Saxon  times,  after  the  Norman  Conquest  cree  was  made  against  them  16  Dec.   Rot. 
it  was  held  by  the  kings,  until  in  the  reign  Pari,  v,  475.    See  Introd.  p.  cxvii. 


115  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S   COUNCIL 

we  willed  thaim  to  retorne  and  to  sende  ayen  this  fest  of  Witsontide  ii  or  iii 
of  euery  hundred  of  the  said  lordship,  and  also  charged  the  said  Reuerent 
fader  to  send  hider  by  the  same  tyme  a  discrete  and  a  sadde  personne  or 
personnes  fully  instruct  of  his  entent  in  all  thinges  concernj-ng  the  variaunce 
betwix  him  and  his  said  tenauntes,  to  thentent  that  we  thajTii  herde  and 
understande  might  by  thauis  of  our  coimsaill  take  suche  direction  therein 
as  shuld  be  to  the  pleasire  of  God  and  ease,  rest  and  pees  of  either  partie. 
And  notwithstandyng  that,  accordyng  to  our  said  commaundement,  both 
the  counsaill  of  the  said  Reuerent  fader  in  God  were  here  redy  for  that  cause, 
and  also,  as  we  understande,  a  greet  compaignye  of  the  said  tenantes,  yit 
the  said  tenantes,  for  what  cause  we  wote  not,  sodeinly  departed  hens,  the 
said  matier  not  herde  nor  examined,  in  their  owen  defaute,  to  our  grete 
mervayllyng,  and  also  hurt  and  tediouse  vexacion  of  the  said  Reuerent 
fadre  in  God,  and  also  to  his  grete  charges  and  expenses.  Wherefore  we 
wol  and  charge  you  that  ye,  going  to  suche  places  in  the  said  lordship  as 
shal  be  thought  to  your  discrecion  moost  expedient,  declare  and  notifie  on 
oure  behalfe  to  alle  the  said  tenantes  the  premisses,  willing  and  chargyng 
thaym  and  eche  of  thaym  that,  accordyng  to  that  hath  be  auised  by  our 
counsaill  as  is  abouesaid,  they  paye  their  rentes,  doo  and  contynue  their 
seutes,  seruices,  werkes  and  custumes,  as  they  aught  and  haue  be  accus- 
tumed  to  doo  in  tyme  passed,  soo  that  in  their  defaute  we  be  noo  more 
vexed  nor  troubled  in  that  partie,  as  they  wol  eschewe  the  perill  that  maye 
falle.  And  ouer  this  wol  and  charge  you  that  ye  assiste,  strengthen,  helpe 
and  fauour  the  said  Reuerent  fadre  in  alle  thinges  belongyng  to  your  office 
accordyng  to  the  duetee  therof  in  the  conseruyng  and  kepyng  of  the  ryght 
and  duetees  of  hym  and  his  churche  of  Wynchestre  accordyng  to  lawe  and 
right.  Yeven  etc.  at  our  Castell  of  Leycester  the  ixth  day  of  Jujti  the 
secunde  yere  of  our  reigne. 

To  our  trusty  and  welbeloued  The  Shirrief  of  our  countee  of  Hampshire. 

[Endorsed: — ]  The  iiide  daye  of  Juyll'  the  seconde  yere  of  the  reigne  of 
our  souuerain  and  liege  lord  King  Edward  the  fourthe  in  the  sterred  Cham- 
bre  at  Westminster,  the  same  our  souuerain  and  liege  lord  by  thauis  of  his 
counsaill  commaunded  his  Chaunceller  of  England  to  doo  make  writtes 
under  the  greet  seal  directed  to  the  shirrief  of  our  coimtee  of  Suthampton, 
and  to  suche  other  as  shal  be  thought  expedient,  commaundyng  by  the  same 
to  make  proclamacion  as  it  is  remembrcd  in  this  minute  within  writen  signed 
with  the  kynges  owen  hande,  ther  beyng  present  the  lordes  Tharchebisshop 
of  Cauntcrbury,*  the  Bisshopes  of  Excestre,'  Chaunceller  of  England,  and 
Norwich,'  Therles  of  Worcestre,^  tresorer  of  England,  and   Kent,'"  The 

«  Thomas  Bourchier,  archbishop,  1454-  •  John  Tiptoft,  treasurer,  1462-64. 

86.  '"  Thomas  Kent,  clerk  of  the  council, 

'  George  Neville,  chancellor,  1460-67.      1443-62.    ticc  Gijfard  v.  Morton,  p.  lOS,  a. 

'  Walter  Lehert,   bishop  of  Norwich, 
1446-72. 


NORTON    V.  COLYNGBORNE 


115 


prior  of  Saint  Johns,"  The  lord  Diicrc,'-  The  kcpcr  of  the  kingcs  priue 
6eal,"  The  Dean  of  Saint  Severyngs,'^  John  Saye,"  etc. 

[Signed:  — ]   T.  Kent. 


NORTON  V.  COLYNGBORNE' 

1474        To  the  l^yng  our  souereign  lorde.' 

Mekely  bescchit  your  pourc  orator  Thomas  Norton '  of  Couuentre 
Chappenian  that  where  on  Henry  Horde  of  Crechirge  *  Marchaunt  wasse 
bowndon  in  an  obligacion  of  xlv  H.  of  lafuU  money  of  Englond  to  your 
sayd  besecher  to  be  payyd  att  a  certen  day  longc  agonne  passyd  as  in  the 
same  obligacion  more  plenely  dothe  appere  for  certen  clothe  that  was 
bowght  of  your  sayde  besecher  by  the  forsayd  Henry  where  uppon  your 
sayd  besecher  of  grete  truste  he  hadde  to  on  Johne  Colyngborne  '  esquier 
of  your  hosehold  And  l[at]e  Seryve  of  Wilteschir  and  for  the  promise  he 


"  Robert  Botyll,  prior,  1439-69. 

"  Richard  Fenys  or  Fiennes,  knight 
chamberlain  to  Edward  IV,  in  1475  re- 
tained a.s  one  of  the  king's  council  with  an 
annuity  of  100  marks.  Cat.  Pal.  15  Ed.  IV, 
550. 

"  Robert  Stillington,  keeper,  1462-70. 

"  Peter  Taster,  dean  of  St.  Severin's,  a 
title  pertaining  to  the  Cathedral  of  Bor- 
deaux, still  continued  in  England. 

"  Of  a  long  established  family  located 
in  Savsburv,  Hertfordshire  (R.  Clutter- 
buck,  "W!s(."o/ //fr(/ord  [1827],  iii,  192  f.). 
In  1452  John  Say  was  a  yeoman  of  the 
crown  and  keeper  of  the  privy  palace  at 
Westminster  {Cal.  Pat.  31  Hen.  VI,  15), 
in  1457  coroner  of  the  marshalsea  of  the 
household  (ibid.  36  Hen.  VI,  399),  from 
1461  justice  of  the  peace  in  Hertfordshire, 
and  in  1449,  1463,  and  1467  knight  of  the 
shire  and  speaker  of  the  house  of  commons. 
In  1476  he  was  keeper  of  the  great  ward- 
robe (ibid.  16  Ed.  IV,  597).  His  death 
was  in  1478. 

'  Ancient  Petitions,  no.  6399. 

'  The  address  to  the  king  rather  than 
to  the  councU,  or  the  king  and  council,  is 
a  noticeable  tendency  of  the  time  of  Ed- 
ward IV. 

'  A  man  of  this  name  is  mentioned  as 
one  of  the  common  council  of  Coventry 
in  1456  and  1469.  Coventry  Leet  Book 
(Early  Eng.  Text  Soc.  1907-13),  285, 
352. 

*  Crichurch  or  Christchurch. 

'  No  man  of  this  name  appears  either 
as  an  attendant  of  the  king's  household 


or  as  sheriff  of  Wiltshire.  There  was  one 
William  Colyngborne,  or  Colingbourn, 
who  was  repeatedly  since  1453  commis- 
sioned as  a  purveyor  of  the  royal  house- 
hold, who  was  called  the  king's  servant  in 
1461  and  given  the  custody  of  the  king's 
park  of  Ludgershall  in  Wiltshire  {Cal.  Pat. 
15,  78),  and  in  1464  was  serjeant  of  the 
king's  pantry  (ibid.  293).  He  was  sheriff 
of  Wiltshire  in  1473-74,  sheriff  of  Somerset 
and  Dorset  in  1475-76,  and  again  sheriff  of 
Wiltshire,  1480-81  (Lists  a7id  Indexes,  Pub. 
Rec.  Office,  ix),  justice  of  the  peace  in 
Wiltshire,  1478-83,  and  repeatedly  com- 
missioner of  inquiry  in  each  of  these  coun- 
ties (Cal.  Pal.  Rolls).  In  1478  he  was  a 
commissioner  to  inquire  into  the  estates 
of  the  late  duke  of  Clarence  (Cal.  Pat.  1 10). 
He  fell  under  suspicion  of  engaging  in 
Buckingham's  rebellion  and  was  con- 
demned and  executed  as  a  traitor  in  1484 
(ibid.  542).  This  William  Colyngborne 
was  also  constantly  engaged  in  htigation 
collecting  debts,  and  it  was  probably 
for  some  such  rea,son  that  the  present 
complainant  placed  the  aforesaid  obliga- 
tion in  his  hands.  It  is  not  unusual  for  a 
petitioner  to  be  in  doubt  about  a  name,  as 
some  of  our  other  records  show.  More- 
over the  petitioner  shows  himself  to  be  a 
very  careless  man.  The  date  assigned  to  the 
petition  depends  on  these  circumstances. 
Between  the  two  possible  dates,  1474 
and  1481,  the  former  is  the  more  likely, 
since  Colyngborne  was  then  both  sheriff 
and  officer  of  the  king's  household. 


116  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

made  to  hym  to  have  gete  hjaii  hys  sayde  dute  contej'nyd  in  the  same  obli- 

gacion  takyng  for  hys  labor  as  they  where  agreyd  deliueryd  hym  the  saied 

obhgaeion  where  your  sayd  besecher  ofte  tymes  sythe  hath  reqmryd  the 

forsyd  Johne  Colyngburne  to  haiie  dehueryd  to  hym  the  sayd  obhgaeion 

or  the  same  dute  conteynyd  there  in.    And  thys  to  doo  he  uterlj'  refuse  to 

the  grete  hurte  and  imdoyng  of  your  sayde  beescher  without  your  good 

and  gracious  lordeschippe  to  hjoii  schowj^d  on  that  behalve  wherfore  your 

saied  orator  besechjm  your  good  and  gracious  lordschypp  the  primez  hereof 

to  consydre  that  the  same  John  Colyngburn  may  come  afore  your  good  and 

gracious  lordeschip  to  be  compellj^d  to  deliueryd  to  j'our  sayd  besecher  hys 

sayd  obhgaeion  or  hys  dute  conteynyd  there  In.^    And  he  schall  pray  to 

god  for  your  riall  and  nobyll  estate. 

,     ..   ,  ^.        [Johannes  Yonge  de  London  Smyth, 

plegu  de  prosecutione  <  „.  ^^  , 

1^  WiLLELMUS  HaUKE  DE  LONDON  YOM.U^. 

[Endorsed:  — ]    Coram  rege  et  consilio  suo  crastino  Johannis.' 

POCHE  V.  IDLE ' 
A 

1481        'To  the  king  our  souuerain  Lord. 

Humbly  sheweth  unto  your  good  grace  your  hmnble  and  dailly  oratrice 
Alice  Poche  wyf  unto  your  humble  subgiet  William  Pouche  ^  that  whereas 
Thomas  Idle  decessed  in  hys  lyf  housbond  unto  the  same  Alice  had  isse  oon 
Richard  son  of  the  said  Thomas  and  Ahce  and  true  enheritour  unto  the 
manour  of  Drayton  with  the  appurtenaunces  lying  in  the  towne  of  Dray- 
ton '  within  your  counte  of  Oxonford  whiche  Richard  was  possessed  of  the 
same  according  to  his  right  unto  the  tyme  that  WiUiam  Idle  oncle  unto  the 
saide  Richard  and  yonger  brother  unto  the  said  Thomas  Idle  willing  to 
pretende  title  unto  the  said  Manour  with  thappurtenaunces  not  with- 
standing that  by  thaward  of  iiij  lerned  men  yeuen  by  thagrement  ^  of  bothe 

"  An  equitable    case.    See   Introd.   p.  agreed  upon  to  settle  a  dispute  privately 

xxxiv.  out  of  court.    It  was  a  method  especially 

'  28  December.  useful  instead  of  a  jury  when  the  question 

'  Council  and  Privy  Seal  (Exch.T.Jl.),  was  complicated  or  technical.    Sometimes 

file  92,  31  July,  21  Ed.  IV,  consisting  of  it  was  proposed  in  a  spirit  of  compromise 

A  the  petition,  and  B  the  minute  of  the  (e.g.  Neville  v.  Neville,  Introd.  p.  ex).   But 

consequent  writ  under  the  privy  seal.  the  method  laboured  for  a  long  time  under 

^  A  man  of  this  name,  Poche  or  Pouche,  many  disadvantages:   the  courts  often  set 

was  in  1484  granted  for  life  the  office  of  such  a  decision  aside  on  technical  ground; 

keeper  of  the  little  wardrobe  within  the  however   the   parties   might   bind   them- 

Tower  of  London.     Cal.  Pal.  1  Ric.  Ill,  selves,  still  the  arbitration  was  not  a  court 

386.  and  had  no  process  to  compel  obedience, 

'  There  were  two  parishes  in  Oxford-  so  that  one  or  the  other  party  might  be 

shire  of  this  name,  one  near  Banbury,  the  compelled  to  go  to  court  for  the  original 

other  on  the  Thames  8^  miles  southeast  matter  in  dispute,  or  for  a  breach  of  the 

of  the  town  of  O.xford.    The  latter  is  the  agreement  to  accept  the  award.    A  needed 

larger  and  probably  the  one  here  referred  reform  was  undertaken  in   the  reign  of 

to.  William  III.     T.  E.  Tomlins,  Law  Die- 

*  An   arbitration,    such   as  was  often  tionary. 


POCHE    V.  IDLE  116 

parties  that  the  said  manour  with  thappurtcnaunccs  shuld  be  and  remayne 
unto  the  said  Richard  and  his  iioiros  for  eucr  as  right  is  by  force  and  amies 
with  the  maintenaunce  of  the  due  of  Suffolk  being  there  in  persone  accom- 
paynj'cd  with  gretc  nombrc  of  riot  tons  persones  warrely  arrayed  that  is  to 
wite  with  bowcs  arowes  gleves  ^  billcs  ^  swerdes  and  othre  weypons  the  xvi 
day  of  this  present  moneth  of  July  forcibly  and  without  any  just  cause  or 
forme  of  your  lawe  entred  into  the  said  manoir  brake  the  houses  and  walles 
of  the  same  in  dyuers  places  toke  and  letlde  awaye  the  bestes  and  goodes 
and  beted  and  chased  owt  alle  the  seruauntes  and  othre  persones  being 
within  the  same.  And  also  the  said  due  of  Suffolk '  in  his  owne  persone 
pullet!  the  said  Alyce  owt  of  hur  chambre  and  put  hir  owt  of  the  said 
Manoir  and  so  thurgh  his  mayntenaunce  the  said  William  Ide  which  is 
outlawed  hath  cuer  sithen  kept  and  yit  kepith  the  said  manoir  and  goodes 
from  the  said  Richaril  ami  Alice  to  their  grete  hint  antl  damage  and  to 
their  utter  undoing  without  your  prouision  and  remedye  in  this  behalue. 
It  may  therfor  please  j-our  highnesse  to  direct  your  gracieus  letters  mis- 
siues  unto  the  lord  lionel  Wydeuill  ^  whiche  is  oon  of  the  feoffees  of  the 
said  manoir  willing  him  by  the  same  to  see  the  said  Richard  Idle  to  be  put 
ayen  in  peacible  possession  of  the  said  Manoir  with  thappurtenaunces  and 
the  said  Alice  restored  to  hur  goodes  and  to  help  and  succour  them  in  their 
right  and  that  they  be  not  interupted  of  the  same  by  any  maner  of  sup- 
portacion  contrary  to  jair  lawes.  And  also  to  see  suche  prouision  as  that 
the  said  due  of  Suffolk  no  further  supporte  ne  maynteyn  the  said  William 
Ide  nor  noon  of  the  said  Riottous  persones  other  wyse  than  accordith  with 
your  said  lawes.  This  at  the  reuerence  of  God  to  whom  your  said  oratrice 
shal  hertily  prey  for  the  conseruacion  of  your  moost  noble  and  royal  estate. 
And  ouer  this  please  it  your  said  highnesse  to  direct  your  said  letters  unto 
William  Medley,  Colwey,  Richard  Edmondes,  Edmund  Whetehile 

with  other  being  within  [the]  said  manour  commauniling  them  by  the  same 
tavoide  from  thenc  and  to  suffre  your  said  oratrice  to  occupie  the  said 
Manoir  according  to  right  and  your  lawes. 

'  Glaive,  a  weapon  composed  of  a  long  sometimes  a  justice  of  oyer  and  terminer 

cutting  blade  at  the  end  of  a  staff,  possibly  (Cat.  Pat.  liolU). 

12  or  13  feet  long.     S.  Myrick,  Anlienl  '  Lionel  Woodville,  third  son  of  Rich- 

Armour,  i,  29;   ii,  125.  ard  Earl  Rivers  and  brother  of  the  queen. 

'  Bill,  a  weapon  in  the  shape  of  a  sickle.  Though  a  olergyman,  he  was  much  en- 

Ibid.  i,  9.5.  gaged  in  the  material  and  sordid  interests 

'  John  de  la  Pole,  second  duke  of  Suf-  of  the  day.    He  was  chancellor  of  the  Ilni- 

folk   {Diet.  Nat.  Biog.).     His  violent  en-  versity  of  Oxford  in  1479,  bishop  of  Sahs- 

tries  into  the  manors  of  Drayton  and  Hrl-  bury,  1482-84,  justice  of  the  peace  in  Wilt- 

lesden  in  Norfolk  are  recounted  in   7'/ie  shire,  1478-81,  in  Berkshire,  1482-83,  and 

Pastor  Letters  (1904),  iv,  nos.  578,  581,  in  the  town  of  Oxford  in   1480.     Ibid.; 

591,  595,  670.    At  this  very  time  he  was  Did.  Nat.  Biog. 
a  justice  of  the  peace  in  Oxfordshire,  and 


117  CASES   BEFORE    THE    KING'S    COUNCIL 

B 

R.  E.'    By  the  king. 

Trusty  and  welbeloued  we  grete  you  wele.  And  for  as  moche  as  it  is 
doon  us  to  understand  bj'  a  lamentable  complaint  made  unto  us  by  Alice 
Poche  moder  to  oon  Richard  Idle  enheritor  to  the  manor  of  Dra3-ton  by 
right  of  his  fader  Thomas  Idle  decessed  somtyme  husband  to  the  said  Alice 
and  lord  of  the  said  manor  that  William  Idle  oncle  unto  the  said  Richard 
and  yonger  brother  unto  the  said  Thomas  accompanyed  with  manj-  othere 
riottous  persones  in  grete  nombre  warrely  arraied  that  is  to  say  with  bowes 
arrowes  glej'\'es  billes  swerdes  and  other  wepons  the  xvi  daie  of  tliis  present 
moneth  of  Jule  forciblj"^  and  withoute  any  just  cause  or  fourme  of  lawe 
entred  into  the  said  manor  brake  the  houses  and  walles  of  the  same  in 
diuers  places  toke  and  ledde  away  the  bestes  and  goodes  beeted  and  chaced 
out  all  the  seruauntes  and  other  persones  being  witliin  the  same  namely 
the  said  Alice  whiche  was  in  peasible  possession  of  all  the  premisses  to  the 
grete  offense  of  us  and  oure  lawes  and  utter  distruction  of  the  said  AUce 
and  Richard  hur  sone  with  oute  due  remedie  of  oure  grace  especial]  to 
theim  be  shewed  in  this  behalf.  We  therfor  woU  and  commaunde  you  in 
the  straitest  wise  that  ye  duely  enformed  of  the  trouth  of  the  premissez 
put  the  said  Alice  hur  said  son  and  other  by  reason  of  thair  title  and  clayme 
having  interest  in  the  said  manor  in  full  possession  of  the  same  togidre 
with  alle  suche  goodes  and  catalles  as  by  the  said  riottors  wer  taken  from 
theim  at  the  tyme  of  the  said  riottous  entree.  Amoving  and  that  j'e  amove 
the  said  WilUam  Idle  and  all  other  occupiours  there  by  occasion  of  the  said 
entree  from  the  said  manor  and  all  that  apperteigneth  to  the  same  charging 
theim  to  appere  afore  us  and  oure  counsaill  at  our  paloys  of  Westminster 
in  the  xv""  of  saint  Michell '"  next  commyng  to  aunswer  to  the  premisses. 
And  that  j'e  faile  not  hereof  and  to  certiiie  us  at  the  said  xv  what  by  you 
is  doon  herein  as  ye  woll  answere  unto  us  at  your  perille.  Yeuen  mider 
our  priue  seall  at  our  Castell  of  Windesore  the  last  day  of  Juyll  the  xxi  yere 
of  our  reigne. 

To  oure  trustj'  and  welbeloued  Sir  William  Stoner  "  knight  for  our  body 
Umfrey  Forster  '^  esquier  theim  or  the  oon  of  theim  with  anj'  othere  of 
oure  Justices  of  peace  within  our  countie  of  Oxonford. 

•  The  sign  manual  of  Edward  IV.  ing  under  Henry  VII  and  became  sheriff 

'"  13  October.  of  O.xfordshire  and  Berksliire  in  1485. 

"  or  Stonour,   member  of  parliament  "  A  commissioner  of  array,  of  inquisi- 

for  Oxfordshire  in    1477,   justice  of  the  tion,  of  gaol  deUvery,  etc.,  justice  of  the 

peace,   1468-83,  frequently  commissioner  peace  in  Oxfordshire,  1460-83.     In  1481 

of  oyer  and  terminer  in  the  county.     He  he  served  on  a  commission  of  oyer  and 

was  involved  in  the  rcbeUion  of  Bucking-  terminer  in  association  with  the  duke  of 

ham  against  Richard  III  in  1483,  with  the  Suffolk   and   WiUiam   Stoner    (Cal.    Pat. 

consequent  loss  of  his  estates  (Cal.  Pat.  21  Ed.  IV,  289). 
1  Ric.  Ill,  433),  but  recovered  his  stand- 


WHELE  V.  FORTESCUE 


117 


WHELE  V.  FORTESCUE ' 

In  the  sterre  chambre  at  Westminster  the  sccunde  daye  of  Mayc  the 
xxij  yere  of  the  reigne  of  our  soueraigne  lord  the  king  Edwarde  the  iiij"" 
present  my  lordes  Tharchcbisshop  of  York  ^  Chaunccller  of  England  the 
Bisshoppes  of  Lincoln  ^  priuc  Seal  Worcestre  *  Norwich  ^  Durham  *  and 
Landaff'  Therle  Rj'\'ers*  the  lordes  Dudley'  Ferres'"  Beauchamp"  Sirs 
Thomas  Borough '-  William  Parre "  Thomas  Vaghan "  antl  Thomas 
Greye  '*  knightis  in  full  and  plenary  counsaill  '^  was  openly  radde  the  Juge- 
ment  and  decree  made  by  my  lordis  of  our  said  soueraignes  lordes  counsaill 
afore  that  tjTne  for  the  partie  of  Richard  Whele  other\vise  calletl  Richard 
Pierson  decreed  made  yeven  and  declared  contrarie  and  ayenst  John 


'  Council  and  Privy  Seal  (Exch.  T.  R.). 
file  92,  2C  June,  22  Ed.  IV. 

•  Thomas  Rotherham,  chancellor,  1475 
-83. 

'  John  Russell,  keeper  of  the  privj' 
seal,  1474-. 

•  John  Alcock,  1476-86. 

'  James  Goldwell,  1472-99. 

•  WiUiam  Dudley,  1476-83. 
'  John  MarshaU,  1478-96. 

'  Anthony  Woodville,  second  eatl,  d. 
1483. 

'  John  Dudley,  sLxth  baron,  d.  1487. 

'"  Walter  Devereux,  Lord  Ferrers  of 
Chart  ley. 

"  Richard,  son  of  John  Beauchamp  of 
Powj-k. 

"  or  Burgh,  an  equerry,  master  of  the 
king's  horse  in  1465,  knight  of  the  king's 
body,  justice  of  the  peace  in  Warwickshire, 
Nottinghamshire,  and  Lincolnshire;  stew- 
ard, custodian,  and  surveyor  of  the  king's 
estates,  commissioner  of  array,  etc.  (Cal. 
Pat.  Rolls).  He  was  one  of  the  ambassa- 
dors sent  in  1475  to  treat  with  France 
{Fosdera,  xii,  15). 

"  or  Parr,  commissioner  of  array  and 
justice  of  the  peace  in  Cumberland  and 
Westmoreland,  sheriff  of  Cumberland  in 
1471,  of  Westmoreland  in  1475;  a  king's 
equerry  since  1468,  one  of  the  ambassa- 
dors sent  to  France  in  1475,  a  member  of 
the  commission  appointed  in  1482  to  hold 
the  office  of  constable  of  England  {Cal. 
Pal.  317),  also  one  of  Edward  TV's  council. 

"  or  ^■aughan,  keeper  of  the  great  ward- 
robe under  Henry  VI,  justice  of  the  peace 
in  Surrey  and  Worcester,  sheriff  of  Surrey 
and  Sussex  in  1466,  equerry  and  treasurer 


of  the  king's  chamber  in  1469,  controller 
and  surveyor  of  the  hanaper  in  chancery 
(ibid.  124),  chamberlain  of  the  Prince  of 
Wales  in  1471  (ibid.  283),  surveyor  and 
demiser  of  various  estates  in  the  king's 
hand. 

"  or  Grey,  of  Little  Tilbury,  Essex;  an 
equerry  and  knight  of  the  king's  body, 
a  Knight  of  St.  George  in  1467  (ibid.  38), 
granted  the  manor  of  Tilbury  in  1475  and 
the  lordship  of  Clavering  in  Essex  for  life 
in  1478  (ibid.  569,  126),  commissioned  in 
1482  to  act  as  vice-marshal  of  England 
(ibid.  317). 

"  These  words  are  apparently  the  Eng- 
lish equivalent  of  the  Latin  in  plena  con- 
silio  and  the  French  en  plein  conseil,  which 
frequently  occur.  Professor  Pollard  has 
argued  that  the  adjective  plenum  or  plein, 
used  in  connection  with  parliament,  means 
"  open  "  or  "  pubUc  "  rather  than  "  full  " 
and  is  equivalent  to  the  French  playn  (Eng. 
Hist.  Rev.  vol.  30,  p.  660).  The  evidence 
seems  to  me  to  the  contrary.  Where  playn 
was  meant,  that  word  was  used  (ibid.) .  In 
one  instance  we  have  en  plein  confort  and 
en  plein  parlement  side  by  side  {The  King's 
Council,  p.  495),  where  the  meaning  can 
only  be  "  full  "  or  "  complete."  A  "  fuU  " 
parliament  or  council,  it  is  true,  need  not 
be  large.  Little  stress  was  laid  upon  the 
size  even  of  great  councils  (ibid.  p.  106). 
The  "  fulness  "  consisted  rather  in  the  com- 
pleteness of  its  legal  form  and  sanction. 
See  also  "plein  restitucion  "  in  Petition  oj 
the  Hansards,  p.  76,  and  "plein  parlement" 
and  "plein  relacion  "  in  ju.xtaposition  in 
Lowestoft  V.  Yarmouth,  p.  66. 


118  CASES    BEFORE   THE  KING'S   COUNCIL 

Fortescue  •'  squier  in  maner  and  fourme  and  under  the  thenure  '*  that 
foloweth.  In  the  matier  of  question  and  contrauersie  betwix  John  Fortescue 
squier  and  Richard  WTiele  otherwise  called  Pierson  of  that  the  said  John 
Fortescue  alleggith  and  seith  that  the  said  Richard  is  a  Scotte  ''  borne  and 
of  thalUgiance  of  the  King  of  Scottis  and  for  such  oon  hath  take  hym  and 
is  in  possession  as  his  prisoner  the  said  Richard  evidentlj^  proving  the  con- 
trarie  and  that  he  is  an  Englissheman  boren  and  noo  Scotte  as  in  the  writ- 
inges  of  the  said  Fortescue  for  his  partie  and  also  of  the  Richard  for  his 
defence  it  is  conteigned  all  at  large  whiche  matier  longe  hath  hanged  in  the 
kinges  counsaill  undecided.  Therfore  the  xxi"  daye  of  Xouembre  the 
xxi"  yere  of  the  reigne  of  our  soueraigne  lord  the  King  Edwarde  the  iiij""  in 
the  sterre  Chambre  at  Westminster  afore  the  lordes  of  the  Kinges  Counsaill 
the  said  writinges  for  either  partie  with  all  such  e\'idences  and  proves  by 
auctorite  examined  and  by  grete  dehberacion  seen  and  understanded.  And 
after  either  of  the  said  parties  bothe  in  thaire  owne  persone  as  by  thair 
counsaill  at  diuers  tjTiies  diligently  herde  in  all  that  they  coude  or  wolde 
allege  and  sale  in  that  behalf  it  appered  to  the  lordes  of  the  said  counsaill 


FOUQUIRE  V.  NICOLE.' 

1432-36        ^  tresreuerend  pere  in  Dieu  treshault  trespuissains  Princes  et  hoimoures 

Sygneurs  messeigneurs  les  Carchnal  Dangleterre  -  Due  de  Gloucestre '  et 
aultres  ConseiUiers  du  Roy  ^  nostre  souuerain  Seigneur-  en  son  Royame 
Dangleterre. 

"  There  was  more  than  one  John  For-  Pat.  32),  king's  almoner  in  146S,  clerk  of 

tescue  hving  at  this  time  but  the  only  one  parliament  in  1471,  dean  of  the  chapel  of 

entitled   "  esquire "   was  John  of   Puns-  the   king's   household   in    1481,  dean   of 

borne,  of  the  Devonshire  branch  of  the  Wells  Cathedral,  and  keeper  of  the  privy 

famous  family  of  this  name  (Lord  Cler-  seal  in  1483  {Fcedera,  xii,  194). 

mozit,  Hist. of  Fam.of  Fortescue, pp.  23Q!.).  ^'  Master  Thomas  Cook,  doctor  of  laws, 

This  John  acquired  properties  in  Essex  in  this  same  year  one  of  the  ambassadors 

through  his  marriage  with  Alice  Mont-  sent  to  Bruges  {Cal.  Pat.  313),  commis- 

gomery  (Morant,  Essex,  ii,  117).    He  was  sioner  to  hear  an  appeal  (ibid.  C  Hen.  VII, 

sheriff  of  Cornwall,  1471-76,  of  Essex  and  350),  etc. 

Hertford  in  1481  and  1485.    Under  Henry  "  Prospero    Camillo    dei    Medici    was 

VII  he  became  a  knight  of  the  body  and  apostolic  collector  in  1476.    Cal.  Pat.  586; 

chief  butler  (Cal.  Pat.  8  Hen.  VII,  421).  Fadcra,  xii,  5. 

He  wa-s  at  the  siege  of  Mt.  St.  Micliacl  in  ='  John  Howard,  duke  of  Norfolk,  1483- 

1472  and  at  the  battle  of  Bosworth  in  1485,  85. 

but  nothing  further  is  known  of  his  par-  ''  or  Harcourt,  an  old  servant  of  the 

ticipation  in  the  Scottish  war.  king's  father,  Richard  Duke  of  York,  who 

"   =  tenor.  was  richly  rewarded  by  Edward  IV  {Cal. 

"  War  between  England  and  Scotland  Pal.  2  Ed.  IV,  198).  He  was  steward, 
came  on  in  1480.  The  date  of  the  first  custodian,  parker,  commissioner  and  jus- 
warrants  was  15  Feb.  1481.  tice  of  the  peace  in  Oxfordshire  and  Nor- 

">  Master    John    Gunthorp,    a    king's  folk, 

clerk,  secretary  of  the  queen  in  1467  and  "  High  bailiff  in  the  county  of  Guysnes 

master  of  King's  Hall,  Cambridge  {Cal.  in  Picardy  in   1468  {Cal.  Pat.  108),  ap- 


FOUQUIRE   V.  NICOLE  118 

[Text  continued  from  opposite  page.] 

that  the  said  Richard  Whele  otherwise  called  Pierson  is  and  was  an  Eng- 
lissheman  borne  and  noo  Scottc  and  that  he  was  borne  in  the  townc  of 
Newcastcll  upon  Tyne  and  therefore  it  is  considered  adiuged  and  decreed 
by  the  same  lordes  the  same  Richard  so  to  be  holden  taken  and  reputed 
amongest  all  the  kinges  lige  people  and  subiectcs  and  as  the  kinges  ligeman 
to  be  demeaned  anil  entreated  in  all  places  and  noon  otherwise  and  to  be 
at  his  large  and  freedome  to  do  that  hym  semeth  good  as  the  kinges  subiecte 
oweth  to  doo  withoute  trouble  lette  or  empechement  and  the  said  John 
Fortescue  to  be  putte  and  so  was  putte  to  perpetucll  silence  of  further 
besynes  sute  or  vexacion  of  the  said  Richard  for  the  cause  aboue  pretended 
in  tyme  to  come  in  any  manerwise;  than  present  my  lordes  tharchcbisshop 
of  Yorke  Chaunceller  of  England  and  Bisshoppis  of  Lincoln  priue  seall, 
Bathe,  Worcestre  and  Durham,  Maisters  Gunthorp,^  Cook,^'  the  popis  col- 
lectour,^  the  lordis  Haward,"  Sir  Thomas  Vaghan  and  Sir  Richard  Hare- 
court  ^*  Knightes  and  Thomas  Thwaytes  ^'  &c. 

[Signed :]   Langport.^ 
Datum  &c.  apud  Westmonasterium  xxvi'«  die  Junii  anno  &c.  xxij. 

FOUQUIRE  V.  NICOLE' 

1432-36  To  the  right  reverend  father  in  God,  the  most  high,  the  most  powerful 
princes  and  honourable  lords,  My  lords  the  Cardinal  of  England,^  the  Duke 
of  Gloucester  '  and  other  councillors  of  our  lord  the  King  ■•  in  his  reahn  of 
England. 

pointed  chancellor  of  the  exchequer  for  liament   in    1431,    although   his   political 

life   in    1471    (ibid.    272),    custodian    for  influence   was    damaged    (see   Diet.   Nat. 

Queen  Margaret  in  1475  (ibid.  571),  treas-  Biog.).     It   is  important  for  dating  the 

urer  of  the  town  and  marches  of  Calais  present  petition  to  note  that  his  name 

in  1483  (ibid.  373).  appears  with  that  of  Gloucester  in  the 

'•  Clerk   of   the    council,    jointly    with  acts  of  the  council  during  the  years  1430- 

Thomas  Kent  in  1458,  solely  in  1462.   See  31  and  1433-36  (Nicolas,  Proceedings,  v, 

Heyron  v.  Proute,  p.  114,  n.  35,  81,  174,  334). 

'  Found     in     Ancient     Petitiotis,     no.  '  The  king's  uncle,  Humphrey,  duke  of 

13,056.  Gloucester,    who    resigned    the   office   of 

•  This  was  the  title  by  which  the  king's  protector   in    1429,   after   which   he   was 

uncle  Henry  Beaufort,  bishop  of  Winches-  made  lieutenant  and  warden  for  two  years 

ter,    was    commonly    known.      He    had  during  the  king's  absence.     The  lack  of 

accepted  the  cardinal's  hat  and  a  iegatine  any  title  and  precedence  given  to  the  duke 

commission   in    1429   without   the   king's  in  this  petition  indicates  the  date  of  the 

consent,  and  for  this  he  had  to  meet  the  present  document  as  later  than  February, 

opposition  of  the  duke  of  Gloucester  and  1432. 

others  of  his  enemies,  who  contended  that  *  The  manner  of  the  address  indicates 

he  had  thus  vacated  his  bishopric,  made  the  minority  of  Henry  V'l.     Petitions  to 

himself  liable  to  the  penalties  of  Praemu-  the  king  himself  begin  to  appear  as  early 

nire,  and  even  forfeited  his  right  to  sit  in  as  23  Nov.  1436  (Nicolas,  v,  5),  and  from 

the  council.    His  rights  in  these  respects  that  time  his  participation  in  the  govem- 

were  substantially  vindicated  before  par-  ment  is  evident. 


119  CASES   BEFORE   THE  KING'S   COUNCIL 

Supplie  treshumblement  Guillaime  Fouquire  poure  homme  laboreiir 
demoirant  en  la  ville  de  Rouen  comme  le  Jeudj  absolu  km  mil.  iiij'^  xxx  .  .  . 
darrein  passe  le  dit  suppliant  et  deux  marchans  du  pais  Dangleterre  lun 
noume  Jehun  Nicole  et  lautre  noume  Estienne  Nicole  lors  demourant  en  la 
parroiche  de  Brilesen  a  demie  lieue  de  Darquemoult,  coment  Ilz  disoiient 
reussent  conuenuns  ensembles  en  certein  lieux  en  la  \alle  de  Rouen  et 
pource  que  le  dit  suppliant  nauoit  pas  de  quoy  nourrer  lui  sa  femme  et 
enfans,  eust  fait  contrault  auec  lesdit  Nicole  que  ycelui  suppliant  bailla 
trois  enffans  ausdit  NicoUe  cest  assavoir  deux  fieux  lun  noume  Gieffroy 
lautre  Geruays  et  ime  fille  nonunee  Jaquelot  pour  faire  seruice  ausdit  Nicole 
pour  certain  temps  cest  assavoir  lesdit  Gieffroy  et  Geruais  par  les  passe  de 
\aj  ans  delors  subsequens  en  leur  querrant  leurs  neccssares  et  les  tenir  a 
lescole  par  le  passe  de  deulx  ans  pour  recompensacion  desquels  deus  ans  la 
fiUe  dessus  ditte  deuoit  faire  seruice  ausdit  NicoUe.^  Et  en  la  fin  desdit  vij 
ans  a  complir  par  lesdit  enffans  et  deulx  par  la  dite  fille,  iceuls  Nicole  les 
deuoient  rendre  a  leurs  custages  en  la  dite  ville  de  Rouen  comme  ces  choeses 
sont  partes  par  lettres  soubz  le  seel  du  Bailliaghe  de  Rouen  que  porte  le  dit, 
de  puis  lesquelles  choeses  la  fenime  du  dit  suppliant  le  {sic)  mere  desdits 
enffans  est  alee  de  vie  atrespas  et  la  subcession  escheue  et  venue  audits 
enffans  dont  plusseurs  deeus  parens  se  sont  voullus  ou  vullent  ensaisine, 
soubz  vindre  de  ce  quils  dient  que  lesdit  enffans  sont  more,  pour  lesquelles 
causes  le  dit  suppliant  est  venu  pour  de  cha  esperant  a  auoir  boienement 
ses  enfans  et  a  troue  que  le  dit  Jehan  Nicolle  est  alle  de  vie  a  trespassemeint 
et  ne  voult  rendre  ledit  Estienne  filz  du  dit  Jehan  Nicole  et  a  sa  femme  de 
cheluy  lesdit  enffans  du  dit  suppliant  niais  les  ont  volus  vendre  et  dit  audit 
suppliant  que  il  ne  ara  point  sesdit  enffans  sc  il  nc  paie  xviij  nobles,^  que  est 
contre  droit  et  raison  ct  la  promess  desdit  NicoUc  et  en  tres  grant  gref  pre- 
iudice  et  damaghe  du  dit  subhant  et  desdit  enfans  qui  nont  point  este  a 
lescole  que  dit  est :  Que  de  votre  benigne  graces  ces  choses  consideres  vous 
plaise  faire  amonstrer  rayson  et  justice  au  dit  suppUant  et  lui  faire  rendre 
ses  enffans  par  le  diet  Estienne  Nicolle  et  la  veusue  de  son  pere  ainsy  que 
obligicr  y  sont  affin  que  lesdit  enffans  puissent  recuiller  lours  heritagis  a 
eulx  veniLS  de  par  leur  mere  et  do  leurs  pere  quant  le  case  eschara,  et  que  le 
dit  suppliant  leur  pere  puisse  faire  de  eulx  leur  profyt  et  lo  sien  '  ainsy  que 

'  Probably  a  contract  of  apprentice-  Ashley,  Econ.  Hist,  and  Theory  (1914),  p. 

ship,    although   nothing  is   here   said   of  85;  L.  F.  Salzmann,  Eng.  Industries  of  the 

instruction  in  a  craft.     Seven  years  was  Middle  Ages  (191.3),  p.  230. 
the  term  commonly  insisted  upon  in  the  '  The  noble,  an  I'^nglish  gold  coin  first 

crafts  of  England,  while  six  years  were  minted  by  Edward  III,  current  for  6s.  8d., 

usual  in  France.    According  to  the  indcn-  which  continued  to  be  issued  by  Richard 

lures  of  the  fifteenth  century,  the  master  11,  Henry  IV,  Henry  V,  Henry  VI  and 

was  to  provide  bed,  board,  training,  neces-  Edward    IV.      The    royal    or    rose-nohle 

saries,  sometimes  remuneration  and  even  coined   by   Edward    IV   was   worth    10s. 

schooling.     The  latter  feature  is  empha-  Cenlury  Diet. 
sized   in   the   present   case.     See  W.  J.  '  This  is  the  point  of  the  petition.    It 


FOUQUIRE   V.  NICOLE  119 

Most  humbly  bcseecheth  William  Fouquire,  a  poor  labourer  dwelling  in 
the  town  of  Rouon,  how  on  Holy  Thursday  of  the  year  fourteen  hundred 
and  tiiirty  .  .  .  l;ust  passed,  the  said  suppliant  and  two  merchants  of  Eng- 
land, one  named  John  Nicole  and  the  other  Stephen  Nicole,  then  dwelhng 
in  the  parish  of  Brixham  a  half-league  from  Dartmouth,  as  they  said,  had 
come  together  in  a  cortam  place  in  the  town  of  Kouen,  and  because  the  said 
suppliant  had  not  the  means  wherewith  to  support  his  wife  and  children, 
he  had  contracted  with  the  said  (John  and  Stephen)  Nicole  to  deliver  three 
children  to  the  said  (Jolm  and  Stephen)  Nicole,  that  is,  two  sons,  one 
named  Geoffrey  and  the  other  Gervaise,  and  a  daughter  named  Jaquelot, 
to  serve  the  said  (John  and  Stephen)  Nicole  for  a  certain  time;  that  is,  the 
said  Geoffrey  and  Gervaise  for  tlie  space  of  seven  years  then  following, 
(John  and  Stephen)  furnishing  them  their  necessaries  and  keeping  them  in 
school  for  two  years  by  way  of  compensation,  during  which  tw^o  years  the 
aforesaid  daughter  was  to  serve  the  said  (John  and  Stephen)  Nicole.^  And 
after  the  completion  of  the  said  seven  years  by  the  said  children  and  two 
by  the  said  daughter,  (John  and  Stephen)  Nicole  were  to  send  them  back 
to  their  home  in  the  said  town  of  Rouen,  (just)  as  these  things  are  set 
forth  in  letters  under  the  seal  of  the  bailliage  of  Rouen,  which  bears  the 
same.  After  which  things  the  wife  of  the  said  suppliant,  the  mother  of  the 
said  children,  has  died  and  her  inheritance  has  come  to  the  said  children,  of 
which  many  of  their  relatives  have  wanted  or  want  possession,  alleging  that 
the  said  children  are  dead.  ^Vherefore  the  said  suppliant  has  come  here 
hoping  to  have  his  children  peaceably,  and  he  has  foimd  that  the  said  Jolm 
Nicole  has  died  meanwhile  and  the  said  Stephen,  son  of  the  said  John 
Nicole,  and  the  wife  of  the  latter  will  not  return  the  said  children  but  have 
wished  to  sell  them,  and  have  told  the  said  suppliant  that  he  should  not 
have  his  children  at  all  unless  he  paid  eighteen  nobles,^  which  (thing)  is  con- 
trary to  right  and  reason  and  the  promise  of  the  said  (John  and  Stephen) 
Nicole  and  to  the  utmost  grief,  prejudice  and  damage  of  the  said  children, 
who  have  not  been  to  school  at  all,  as  has  been  said.  May  it  please  your 
benign  graces,  having  considered  these  things,  to  show  reason  and  justice 
to  the  said  suppliant  and  cause  his  children  to  be  returned  by  the  said 
Stephen  and  his  father's  widow,  just  as  they  are  boimd  to  do,  so  that  the 
said  children  may  be  able  to  recover  their  inheritance  which  comes  to 
them  from  their  mother  and  their  father,  when  the  case  requires,  and  that 
the  said  suppliant  their  father  may  be  able  to  make  of  them  their  profit 
and  his  own,'  just  as  natural  right  and  reason  permit.    Hereupon  grant 

wa.s  necessary  to  bring  the  children  into  strict   sense   of   the   word    '  represented  ' 

court,  for  the  father  could  not  act  as  their  before  the  court  by  his  guardian  even  if  he 

attorney.     "  .Vn  infant  can  sue;    he  sues  has  one.  ...    A  friend  of  the  infant  may 

in  his  own  proper  person,  for  he  can  not  sue  out  a  writ  and  bring  the  child  into 

appoint  an  attorney.     He  is  not  in  any  court.    But  the  action  will  be  the  infant's, 


120  CASES   BEFORE   THE   KING'S   COUNCIL 

droit  et  raison  naturel  le  donnont.  Et  sur  che  donnez  bone  et  brieue  expe- 
dicion  au  dit  suppliant  qui  na  de  quoy  venir  pour  de  cha  et  icelui  sup- 
pliant priora  Dieu  pour  le  Roy  mon  dit  Seigneur  et  pour  vous.^ 

not    the    friend's    action  "     (Pollock    &      48,  and  Stat.  Westm.  II,  c.  15.    See  also 
Maitland,  ii,  440-41).     These  safeguards      Holdsworth,  Hist.  Eng.  Law,  iii,  398. 
were  strengthened  by  Stat.  Westm.  I,  c. 


FOUQUIRE   V.  NICOLE  120 

good  and  speedy  expedition  to  the  said  suppliant,  who  has  not  the  means 
to  come  here,  and  the  same  suppliant  will  pray  to  God  for  the  king,  our 
sovereign  lord,  and  for  you.' 

'  As  to  the  significance  of  this  petition  in  respect  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  council, 
see  Introd.,  pp.  xxxi-xxxiv. 


APPENDIX  I 


[1482] 

Pro  Meroatori- 
bus  Stapule 
Caleaie 


IN  RE  HEYRON  v.  PROUTE » 

Rex  universis  et  singulis  presentem  paginam  visuris  lecturis  aut  audituris  salu- 
tcm,  ct  fideni  induhiiun  prosentibiis  adliiboro.  Cum  sicuti  informaraur  Ricardus 
Heron'  laicus  naturalis  subditus  noster  qui  iam  multis  annis  Societatem  Mcrcatorum 
Stapule  nostre  Calisie  extra  loca  nostre  obediencie  seu  iurisdiccioni  subiecta  maxi- 
niis  litibus  ct  turbacionibus  non  solum  ad  eorum  quani  maxima  dispendia  vcrum 
eciam  in  nostre  regie  potestatis  spretum  et  contuineliam  vexauit,  nulla  racione 
induci  potcrit  vt  ab  huiusmodi  forenci  inquictacione  Societatis  predicte  desistat 
aut  qucrinioniam  suam  in  aliqua  curiarum  nostrarum  aduersus  ipsam  Societatem 
seu  particulares  personas  eiusdem  instituat  et  prosequatur,  prout  attento  quod 
causa  sua  quam  pretendit  est  mere  mercatoria  et  prophana  atque  intra  fines  nostre 
iurisdiccionis  inter  solos  subiectos  nostros  originem  sumens  faccre  deberet  et  tenetur 
set  post  onuies  ct  singulas  remissiones  cause  eiusdem  tam  ex  Flandrie  et  Francie 
quam  ex  Curia  Romana  ad  nostra  tribunalia,  ipse  in  duricia  animi  sui  persistens 
iam  dudum  a  quodam  Actu  Parliamenti  nostri  ac  a  certis  monicionibus  et  iniunc- 
tionibus  per  honorabilera  et  cireumspectum  virum  Johannem  Shirewodc  nostrum 
in  ipsa  Romana  Curia  procuratorem  eidem  Ricardo  de  mandato  ac  nomine  nostro 
factis  vt  ab  huiusmodi  forensi  molestacione  mercatorum  iuxta  eiusdem  Actus 
Parliamentalis  continenciam  cessaret  ac  causam  suam  in  aliqua  curiarum  nostrarum 
vt  dictum  est  institueret  et  prosequeretur  ad  Sedem  Apostolicain  de  nouo  appellauit 
rem  sane  noiiam  ct  prioribus  seculis  inuisam  aggressus  cum  nusquam  ante  comiwr- 
tum  sit  a  Icgibus  et  politicis  institutis  regnorum  superiores  in  tcmporalibus  non 
recognoscencium  fuisse  talitcr  appollatum.  Nos  igitur  cupientes  omnibus  qui  pre- 
fato  Ricardo  ad  tantam  nostri  et  nostrorum  iniuriam  et  iacturam  patulas  aures 
prebent  de  racione  satisfacerc  vttiuc  toti  mundo  clarissimum  esse  possit  non  esse  aut 
fuisse  causam  vUam  racionabilcm  quare  ipse  Ricardus  Heron'  alii)i  quam  in  Anglia 
causam  quam  habet  aduersus  Societatem  Stapule  nostre  predicte  institueret  aut 
prosequeretur  mandauimus  venerabilibus  patribus  ac  aliis  nobilibus  et  circum- 
spectis  viris  Dominis  consilij  nostri  vt  omnia  et  singula  que  per  eundem  Ricardura 
apud  Scdcm  predictam  ea  intencione  vt  liberam  prosccucioncin  huius  cause  extra 
Angliam  habere  posset  suggcsta  sunt  summarie  repetcntes  talia  super  eisdem  con- 
grua  vera  atque  Icgalia  responsa  aptarent  ex  quibus  omnis  aduerse  opinionis  scrupu- 
lus  de  medio  bonarum  mencium  toUerctur  et  nos  pro  veritatis  et  iusticie  zelatore 
commendari  vbilibet  dcberennis  super  quo  ipsi  Domini  Consilij  nnstri  mature  pro- 
cedcntes  rimatis  per  cos  ac  diligenter  inucstigatis  statutis  ordinacionibus  conuen- 
cionibus  tractatibus  et  appunctuamentis  tam  creacionem  et  erectionem  Stapule 
nostre  predicte  quam  communicacionem  et  intcrcursum  in  facto  mercanciarum 

'  The  conclusion  of  the  htigation  begun  in  Heyron  v.  Proute  aiid  Others,  supra,  pp. 
110-114,  as  explained  in  Introduction,  p.  cxv.  The  record  is  taken  from  Treaty  Roll, 
21  Edw.  IV,  no.  165,  mm.  1-3. 

121 


122  APPENDIX    I 

aliosque  necessaries  articulos  pro  causa  eiusmodi  dilucidanda  concernentibus  tandem 
relacionem  nobis  de  et  super  omnibus  suggestis  per  ipsum  Ricardum  memoratis 
fecerunt  in  scriptis  sub  eo  qui  sequitur  tenore  verborum:  Sequntur  responsa  vera 
atque  Icgittima  ad  ea  que  per  quendam  Ricardum  Heron'  laicum  nacionis  Anglicane 
in  causa  quam  se  habere  pretendit  aduersus  Societatem  Mereatorum  Stapule 
Calisie  pro  mala  contraccione  lanarum  suanim  per  eandem  Societatem  intra  Stapu- 
1am  eandem  vt  dicitur  factam  apud  Sedem  Apostolicam  tam  ex  forma  pristine  sup- 
plicacionis  quam  secute  appellacionis  per  eum  ibidem  interposite  tacita  veritate 
suggesta  sunt  yisn  serie  supplicacionis  quam  Ricardus  Heron'  porrexit  sancissimo 
Domino  nostro  Domino  SLxto  Diuina  Prouidencia  Pape  quarto  cuius  vigore  pcruen- 
tum  fuit  ad  quoddam  monitorium  penale  atque  ad  quendam  exinde  secutum  pro- 
cessum  contra  et  adversus  Societatem  Mereatorum  Stapule  Calisie  sicut  ex  forma 
cuiusdam  bulle  reuocatorie  et  annullatorie  dicti  processus  et  omnium  ex  eo  depen- 
dencium  de  data  sexto  Idus  Novembris  anno  Pontificatus  euisdem  S.  D.  nostri  none 
plenissime  continetur,  \-iso  eciam  transcripto  cuiusdam  instrumenti  de  et  super 
appellacione  per  eundem  Ricardum  vndecimo  die  Januarij  anno  Domini  Millesimo 
CCCC"°  octuagesimo  primo  secundum  computacionem  Ecclesie  Romane  in  Basilica 
Principis  Apostolorum  Rome  interposita;  preter  et  vltra  ea  que  per  ipsum  Ricar- 
dum super  meritis  decisiuis  sui  negocij  diffuse  narrantur,  quorum  recitatio  presenti 
proposito  non  conducit  quedam  ad  fundandam  iurisdiccionem  eorum  apud  quos 
extra  loca  obediencie  Domine  Regis  Anglie  dictus  Ricardus  litem  ipsam  instituit  ab 
eo  introducta  allegata  et  suggesta  esse  constat.  Idcirco  ne  error  cui  non  resistitur 
approbetur  et  ne  Veritas  falcitati  succumbat  equum  visum  est  allegata  et  suggesta 
huiusmodi  infrascriptis  racionibus  veritati  et  iusticie  consonis  informare  ad  omnem 
iuris  effectum  qui  exinde  sequi  pwterit  et  presertim  vt  causa  laicalis  et  prophana  ad 
Curiam  Romanam  de  facto  falsis  suggestionibus  deuoluta  ad  suum  iudicem  legittime 
remittatur.  In  forma  autem  supplicacionis  sue  prelibate  prefatus  Ricardus  inter 
cetera  commemorans  quomodo  olim  Rex  Anglie  et  eius  regni  Parliamentum  statu- 
erunt  stapulam  lanarum  et  pellium  lanutarum  in  villa  Calesie  Morinensis  Diocesis 
quodque  ad  maiorem  defensionem  dicte  ville  extra  regnum  predictum  consist«ntis  et 
huiusmodi  regni  circumdate  inimicis  et  pro  securitate  Mereatorum  eiusdem  Socie- 
tatis  in  huiusmodi  ordinacione  Rex  et  Parliamentum  prefatum  inhibuerunt  omni- 
bus et  singulis  cuiuscumque  auctoritatis  essent  ne  lanas  aut  pelles  huiusmodi  in 
Stapula  aut  villa  predicta  pro  tempore  existentes  alias  quam  per  viam  iusticie 
capere  aut  dampna  alicui  ex  Mercatoribus  dicte  Stapule  inferre  presumerent  sub 
quadrupli  pena  parti  offense  applicanda  subiungendo  consequenter  certas  normas  et 
regulas  iuratas  sub  quibus  Mercatores  ipsius  Societatis  omnes  et  singuli  inter  se  pro 
securitate  et  salua  guardia  ville  predicte  conuiuere  posscnt  et  deberent  deniquo  ad 
fundandam  iurisdiccionem  Ducis  Burgundie  tanquam  Comitis  Flandrie  sueque 
legis  pro  reformacione  dampnorum  alicui  ex  predictis  Mercatoribus  per  ipsam 
Societatem  seu  particulares  personas  eiusdem  circa  lanas  aut  pelles  huiusmodi  infra 
ipsam  Stapulam  illatorum  dummodo  lane  seu  pelles  prcfate  contra  voluntatem  pos- 
sessorum  per  vim  et  \'iolenciam  extra  Stapulam  ipsam  ad  loca  dicioni  Ducis  Bur- 
gundie subiecta  transportata  fuerint,  dixit  rccitauit  et  suggcstit  prout  sequitur 
quod  successiue  inter  tunc  Regem  Anglie  et  Ducem  Burgundie  conuentum  extitit 
quod  omnes  mercatores  et  quilibet  eorum  possent  ire  libere  et  secure  cum  omnibus 
lanis  bonis  et  mercanciis  i[>sius  regni  Anglie  in  P^landriam  Holandiam  Zclaudiam 
Brabanciam  et  alia  loca  dicti  Ducis  dominio  subiecta  et  in  illis  conuersari  ac  exinde 


APPENDIX    I  123 

rcccdere  absque  eo  quori  aliquis  [jossit  procodere  contra  cos  alias  quam  iusticia 
mediante.  Et  quod  si  (jua.s  laiias  aut  mcrcancias  per  vim  eapi  et  ad  dicta  loca  eius- 
dein  Duels  tomporali  doiniiiio  subiocta  dcfcrri  aut  inde  voudi  ct  distribui  contingeret 
officiales  Ducis  in  cisdeni  locis  deinitati  ilias  rcstitui  facere  dcbcrcnt  ct  nisi  id  face- 
rent  valorem  talis  mercancie  de  suo  soluere  tenerentur,  prout  hec  omnia  in  capite 
prefatc  Bulle  peticioneni  dicti  Ricardi  oxpriiiientis  latius  diffusiusque  contincntur. 
Ad  premissa  rcspondetur  veracitcr  in  liuiic  modum:  Veruin  est  quod  Villa  Calesie 
situatur  in  medio  terre  corum  qui  regno  Anglie  consueuerant  aduersari  quod  ad 
solacium  rcleuamen  ct  dcfencionem  eoruin  qui  in  dicta  villa  conuersantur  ordina- 
tum  fuit  illic  deberc  esse  Stapulani  lanarum  ct  pcllium  predictarum  sub  huiusmodi 
statutis  et  constitucionibus  a  sui  primordio  crectam  et  stabilitam  quod  inconsultis 
atque  inuitis  viciiiis  oportuerat  non  nulla  pro  tutela  eiusdem  opidi  castri  et  mar- 
chiarum  tam  per  Parliamenta  regni  quam  alias  pollitice  per  ipsos  de  Stapula  et 
ceteros  inhabitantes  ordinari  de  quibus  neque  racio  ncquc  cqutas  suadcbat  \^  aut 
Dux  Burgundie  aut  qui  i)ro  tempore  aduersus  Anglicos  rcgnaret  in  Galliis  index  esse 
posset  nam  in  hiis  priuatis  statutis  consistunt  secrcta  regni.  Et  quorum  incompe- 
tens  est  iudex  quicunique  est  ille  contra  cuius  conatus  ipsa-s  ordinaciones  cmanasse 
constiterit  \-uIgata  est  enim  querela  omnium  subditorum  Ducis  Burgundic  qui  cum 
Mercatoribus  Stapule  in  factis  mercandise  communicant  quod  Stapularij  illi  per 
suas  ordinacione  spriuatas  libertatem  intercursus  indies  infringunt  monopolia  atque 
alia  dampata  decreta  et  concilia  statuendo.  Solus  igitur  iudex  eorum  que  ex  priua- 
tis statutis  eiusmodi  dcpendere  noscuntur  is  princeps  est  qui  aut  ipsa  statuta  edidit 
aut  aUis  edendi  auctoritatem  dedit.  Quam  ob  rem  si  Ricardo  Heron'  ex  statute 
aliquo  regni  ordinacionibusve  privatis  stapule  actio  ad  recuperandum  quadruplum 
dampni  sibi  per  aliquos  in  Stapula  dati  compctere  dinoscatur  prosecucioncm  suam 
ab  inicio  in  Curia  Regis  sui  facere  debuerat  et  non  externa  atque  incompetencia 
pulsare  examina.  Quod  autem  id  quod  maximum  fundamentum  sue  cause  ignaris 
hominibus  videtur  esse  nullius  roboris  sit  aut  momenti  videlicet  vt  pro  \'iolencia 
circa  lanas  in  Stapula  Calesie  commissa  postquam  ipse  adducte  fuerint  in  partes 
Flandrie  legis  latores  ibidem  iurisdiccionem  habeant  in  subditos  Regis  ex  forma 
articuli  intercursus  vnde  Ricardus  ille  argumentum  sumere  videtur  luce  clarius 
demonstrandum  est.  Non  enim  data  est  principi  unius  aut  alterius  partis  iurisdiccio 
pro  hiis  que  extra  sua  territoria  perpetrantur  nisi  solum  in  capcionibus  maritiniis  si 
res  subditorum  unius  partis  per  piratas  aut  alios  bellatores  martimos  interecpte  in 
potestatem  alterius  partis  deuencrint.  Qui  igitur  composicionem  islam  ad  capturam 
terrestrem  extendens,  cum  de  mari  tantummodo  mencionem  facit,  suadet  suo  aut 
alicno  principi  summoque  Pontifici,  quos  ca  que  sunt  facta  eciam  si  ])eritissimi  sint 
fallunt,  quod  causara  suam  in  terra  Calesie  ortum  habentem  legittime  introduxit 
primum  in  Curiam  Ducis  Burgimdie  atque  deindc  per  appcllaciouis  remedium  ad 
Parliamentum  Francie;  postulans  a  suo  Rege  summo  etc.  Pontifice  hiis  erroribus 
circumuento  licenciam  et  potestatem  ita  in  forensi  et  vetito  examine  inehoatum 
processum  tanquain  in  foro  competenti  vsque  ad  finalem  sentenciam  prosequendam 
indignus  est  vt  super  falsis  suggestionibus  suis  amplius  audiatur  aut  permittatur 
gaudere  litteris  licencie  eiusmodi  tam  surrepticiis  per  cum  vt  premittitur  impetra- 
tis,  ut  autem  Veritas  istius  composicionis  que  non  aliter  se  habet  quam  co  modo 
quo  iam  recitatur  omnibus  nota  sit  visum  est  ipsum  integrum  articulum  ex  corpore 
litterarum  intercursus  mercandisarum  jirout  inter  regnum  Anglie  et  patrias  Ducis 
Burgundie  sub  mutuis  principum  sigillis  ab  antique  expedite  fucrant  extrahere  et 


124  APPENDIX   I 

presentibus  inserere  cuius  tenor  talis  est.  Item  so  par  escumers  ou  aultres  gens 
labourans  sur  la  guerre  aucuns  biens  des  mcrchans  de  la  partie  Dangletere  ou  de 
Brabant  Flaundres  Malines  ou  aultres  pais  dessusdit  estoient  prins  sur  mer  et 
ameneez  en  aucuns  dez  portz  ou  haures  de  lun  partie  ou  de  lautre  que  iceuLx  biens 
ne  pourront  illec  estre  vendus  ne  aUeneez  sur  terre  ne  mis  a  terre  par  lesdit  escumers 
ou  aultres  quelzconques  et  se  ilz  estoient  ainsi  venduis  aUenees  sur  terre  ou  mis  a 
terre  que  restitucion  sera  fait  desdit  biens  ou  de  leur  dit  valeur  aux  merchans  de 
qui  on  les  auroit  prins.  Et  auront  les  officers  des  lieux  mandement  expresse  par 
lettres  patentes  telz  quili  appartient  defair  faire  ladit  restitucion  toutes  les  fois  que 
le  cas  escherra  sur  painc  de  le  recouirer  sur  eulx  se  lesdit  biens  estoient  ainsi  vendus 
ou  aUeneez  a  terre  ou  mis  a  terre  de  leur  sceu  ou  souffrance  et  auec  se  sera  fait  de- 
fence es  portes  et  haurez  dun  coste  et  daultre  sur  certains  et  grosses  paines  que 
alcun  de  quelque  nacion  quU  soit  ne  achate  a  terre  ne  pourra  mettre  a  terre  aucuns 
dez  dit  biens.  Ita  quidem  confutato  precipue  immo  et  solo  dicti  Ricardi  argumento 
ex  cuius  faUacia  Reges  et  ceteri  Principes  demumque  summus  Christi  Vicarius 
circumuenti  non  nulla  eidem  per  suas  Utteras  concesserunt  que  si  premissorum 
scioli  extitissent  de  verisimili  non  fuissent  quomodolibet  concessuri  superfluum 
\'idetur  reliqua  prefate  supplicacionis  capitula  pwrtractare  que  non  declinatoriam 
fori  set  peremptoriam  materiam  atque  interiora  viscera  cause  apud  suum  iudicem 
agitande  concemunt,  excepto  quod  ipse  Ricardus  se  peregrinum  et  romipetam  tem- 
pore turbacionis  sue  fuisse  lapsis  postea  prope  viginti  annis  finxit  et  similauit.  Que 
res  quam  per  nonnullas  litteras  regias  superioribus  diebus  Sancissimo  Domino 
nostro  transmissas  sepissime  ostensa  est  ficticia  et  similata,  ita  quod  non  sit  amplius 
opus  rem  certam  cerciorem  efficere  ad  vanitatem  causarum  que  ex  serie  prefati  ap- 
peUacionis  deducte  sunt  veniendum  est  et  primo  quia  dictus  Ricardus  inuehens  in 
litteras  regias  procuratori  suo  directas  in  quibus  certus  terminus  ei  prefigitur  ad 
veniendum  in  Angliam  causam  que  pendet  inter  ipsum  et  Mercatores  Stapule  prose- 
cuturo  easdem  litteras  de  mente  Domini  Regis  non  processisse  sed  per  circumuen- 
cionem  et  preoccupacionem  sua  maiestate  aliis  arduis  occupata  dolo  dictorum  Mer- 
eatorum  extortas  esse  affirmat  pro  eo  et  ex  eo  quod  in  eisdem  litteris  continetur  quod 
dictus  Ricardus  rebeUis  Domino  Regi  extiterit  cum  sicuti  dicit  ita  non  fuerit  quodque 
in  eis  causa  aliqua  dicitur  pendere  indecisa  inter  ipsum  et  dictos  Mercatores  quod 
dicit  verum  non  esse  cum  iam  pridem  contra  ipsos  sin  autem  super  bonis  suis  per 
ipsos  sibi  spoliatis  super  quibus  multis  annis  questio  inter  ipsos  fuit  vt  dicit  agitata 
primo  in  AngUa  deinde  in  Flandria  et  postmodum  in  Francia,  deinde  iterate  in 
Anglia  et  postremo  in  Francia  et  tandem  propter  iusticie  denegacionem  successiue 
in  eisdem  partibus  sibi  factam  in  Curia  Romana  dcuoluta  obtinuit  declaratoriam 
que  nulla  prouocacione  suspensa  in  rem  transiuit  iudicatam.  Ad  hunc  articulum 
ita  respondetur  quo  ad  notam  rebellionis  attinet  prefatus  Ricardus  longe  antequam 
dictc  littere  regie  emanarunt  eam  incurrebat  non  obtemperando  legi  que  in  eum  per 
tres  status  regni  in  Parliamento  lata  fuit  vt  videlicet  desisteret  extra  rcgnum  ab 
omnibus  accionibus  et  prosecucionibus  determinabilibus  in  aliqua  Curia  Domini 
Regis  quas  habet  aut  habere  jxitest  contra  Maiorem  et  Mercatores  Stapule  ante- 
dicte  sub  pena  vt  contrafaciens  ponatur  extra  proteccionem  Domini  Regis  et  sub 
aliis  grauibus  penis  in  Actu  Parliamenti  desuper  tenti  plenius  expressatis.  Ad  aliud 
quod  dicit  de  causa  non  pendente  set  decisa  per  sentenciam  declaratoriam  quam 
obtinuit  in  Curia  Romana  ad  quam  Curiam  dicit  fuisse  ipsam  causam  deuolutam 
propter  denegacionem  iusticie  sibi  facte  bina  vice  in  Anglia  et  tociens  in  Francia  ac 


APPENDIX    I  125 

semel  in  Flandria  inira  est  nudacia  hominis  in  cuniiilando  tot  pudenda  mcndacia. 
Nam  quantum  ad  Angliam  attinet  nunquam  ihi  prosccutus  est  causam  istam  in 
aliqua  C'uriarum  Domini  Regis  nee  etiani  in  suprema  Curia  Parliamenti  eiusdem 
regni  ad  quam  per  duos  annos  continuos  infra  limites  sanetuarii  ubi  ipse  tutissime 
residebat  tentam  et  celebratam  libcrum  accessum  indies  habere  potuit  et  quere- 
moniam  suam  ibidem  discutere  si  voluisset.  Verum  longe  sibi  alia  mens  fuit  vt 
subdole  Dominum  Regem  per  informaciones  aliquorum  qui  suo  lateri  assistebant 
circumueniret  pretendcndo  licet  erronec  quod  virtutc  articuli  intercursus  mernora- 
tur  queni  ad  easum  inpi-rtinentem  vt  prefertur  extendebat  officiales  Ducis  Bur- 
gundie  fuerant  immcdiater  indices  competentes  sue  cause  in  quorum  defectu  sicut 
asseruit  cadem  causa  fucrat  per  suam  appellacionem  ad  curiam  Parliamenti  Francie 
legittimc  deuoluta  suggessit  igitur  Domino  Regi  Anglic  causam  suam  tunc  in 
Francia  pendere,  quod  venuii  non  erat  quia  multis  antea  transactis  annis  ipsa  causa 
remissa  fuit  a  Parliamento  Francie  ad  Dominum  Regem  Anglic  tanquam  ad  iudicem 
proprium  et  ordinarium  cuius  rei  si  protunc  Dominus  Rex  memor  extitisset  denegas- 
set  profecto  litteras  ipsas  licencie  alibi  prosequendi  quas  prefatus  Ricardus  tantis 
cautelis  tamquc  surrepticie  a  sua  maiestate  extorsit.  Quam  ob  rem  detecta  con- 
sequenter  surrepcione  eiusmodi  licuit  Domino  Regi  absque  nota  seu  suspicione 
mutabilitatis  aut  inconstancie  cuiuslibet  dare  atque  expedire  litteras  posteriores 
proccdeneium  reuocatorias  sicut  eodem  modo  prout  sacri  canones  testantur  licet 
Christi  Vicario  sentcneiam  Romane  Sedis  posse  in  melius  commutare  cum  aut  sur- 
reptum  aliquid  fuerit  aut  pro  consideracione  etatum  temporum  seu  grauium  ncces- 
sitatum  Sedes  ipsa  diapensacione  quicquam  ordinauerit.  Et  igitur  dicit  prefatus 
Ricardus  causam  illara  non  pendere  set  esse  decisam  per  dictam  pretensani  senten- 
ciam  declaratoriam  falsum  esse  conuincitur  quoniam  ipsa  sentencia  cum  toto  pro- 
cessu  exinde  secuto  per  buUam  Sancissimi  Domini  nostri  de  data  predicta  propter 
falsas  suggestiones  per  dictum  Ricardum  sue  sanctitati  prius  vt  premittitur  factas 
ex  suo  mero  motu  et  certa  scientia  reuocata  est  causaque  omnis  reposita  in  prist  in um 
statum.  Secundo  et  multum  peremptorie  sicut  sibi  videtur  prefatus  Ricardus  sub- 
infert  quod  Mercatores  Stapule  vt  saltem  ficticium  et  velatum  colorem  haberent 
sibi  non  satisfaciendi  famam  currere  fecerunt  Dominum  Regem  Anglie  dum  adhuc 
Comes  Marchie  existeret  ipsum  bonis  suis  in  dicto  oppido  Calesie  spoliasse  seu 
spoliari  fecisse,  ob  quam  causam  idem  Dominus  Rex  vt  de  sua  innocencia  super  hiis 
clarissime  constare  posset,  per  suas  litteras  patentes  magno  et  priuato  sigillis  et 
signo  manuali  vt  supponit  munitas  licenciam  sibi  concessit  quod  predictos  Mer- 
catores extra  dictum  regnum  suum  Anglie  in  Parliamento  Parisiensi  ad  quod 
tanquam  ad  Comitatus  Flandrie  immediatam  supremam  iusticiain  per  appella- 
cionem sicut  pretendit  deuoluta  fuerat  et  alibi  coram  iudicibus  ncutralibus  et  in- 
difcrentibus  sicut  bonum  sibi  vidorctur  prosequi  posset,  in  iiuo  ctiam  articulo  dictus 
Ricardus  innititur  ad  longum  super  fundandaiurisdiccione  Ducis  Burgundie  tanquam 
Comitis  Flandrie  Officiariorumque  et  quatuor  membrorura  Comitatus  Flandrie 
ad  cognoscendas  et  decidcndas  questiones  motas  sine  mouendas  super  spoliacione 
huiusmodi  lanarum  et  mercanciarum  ab  opido  Calesie  vbi  spoliacio  facta  fuit  sicut 
dicit  ad  eundem  Coraitatum  Flandrie  transportatarum  et  ibidem  alienatarum  dicens 
quod  per  Reges  Anglie  ex  vna  et  per  Duces  Burgundie  tanquam  Comitcs  Flandrie 
ex  altera  partibus  leges  et  statuta  intercursus  mercanciarum  taliter  ordinata  sunt 
et  hucusque  per  eos  inconcusse  obseruata  quod  huiusmodi  spoliacionis  cognicio  ad 
legem  dicti  comitis  pertineret  subiungit  preterea  Dominum  Regem  fecisse  dictum 


126  APPENDIX   I 

Ricardum  ex  causis  premissis  obligari  et  condempnari  coram  Abbate  Monasterii 
Sancti  Petri  infra  Sanctuarium  Westmonasterii  London'  Diosesis  vt  huiusmodi 
prosecucionem  modo  quo  premittitur  extra  suum  regnum  facere  deberet,  quodque 
dictus  Dominus  Rex  per  litteras  suas  in  huiusmodi  prosecucione  sibi  assistenciam 
prebere  et  nunquam  illius  contrarium  facere  bona  fide  et  in  verbo  regis  promiserat 
concludendo  ex  Mis  omnibus  non  esse  verisimile  aut  vllo  modo  credendum  quod 
ipse  iniunctiones  et  intimaciones  per  procuratorem  regium  sibi  facte  nee  ipsa  ordi- 
nacio  Parliamenti  Anglicani  qua  sub  grauibus  penis  dictus  Ricardus  admonetur  a 
prefatis  prosecucionibus  desistere;  quouLsmodo  de  eiusdem  Domini  Regis  mente 
processerit,  reputans  prefatos  Mercatores  qui  tales  litteras  a  Domino  Rege  emanasse 
confirmant  in  maximum  scandalum  ^•ituperium  et  confusionem  eiusdem  Domini 
Regis  talia  promulgare,  quodque  ob  earn  rem  per  eundem  Dominum  Regem  et 
suum  magnum  Consilium  deberent  acerime  puniri  in  exemplum  aliorum.  Ad  hunc 
articulum  licet  consideratis  premissis  non  sit  opus  respondere  cum  ad  omnes  partes 
eiusdem  que  maxime  ^Tgere  \'idetur  sic  implicite  supra  satis  responsum  excepto  eo 
quod  iam  suppwnitur  Mercatores  predictos  diffamasse  Dominum  Regem  de  per- 
petracione  spolii  antedicti.  Ad  conuincendam  tamen  ia  toto  maliciam  et  falsitatem 
dicti  Ricardi  de  cuius  impudencia  quam  plurimum  mirandum  est  quod  Supremum 
Ecclesie  verticem  suis  ficticiis  supplantare  non  veretur  non  minus  quam  Reges  et 
ceteros  Principes  seculares  suis  versuciis  et  coloratis  adinuencionibus  hactenus  sup- 
plantauit  [et]  decepit,  visum  est  omnia  et  singula  membra  dicti  articuli  responsiue 
repetere  taliter  quod  toti  mundo  apparebit  singulas  litteras  que  a  Domino  Rege  in 
premissis  emanarunt  de  sua  recta  et  sincera  consciencia  processisse  ac  prioribus 
litteris  surrepticiis  non  obstantibus  de  iure  procedere  debuisse  cum  integritate  sui 
regij  nominis  atque  fame.  Quantum  autem  ad  famam  illam  attinet  quam  sicut 
dictus  Ricardus  asserit  Mercatores  Stapule  sparsissent  aduersus  prefatum  Dominum 
Regem  videat  ipse  Ricardus  an  ipse  et  complices  sui  vt  dictos  Mercatores  inuisos  et 
odibiles  eidem  Domino  Regi  redderent  talia  de  eisdem  !Mercatoribus  ubique  semi- 
nanmt;  verum  est  quod  post  vltimum  discessum  prefati  Ricardi  a  regno  Anglie 
datum  est  dictis  Mercatoribus  intelligi  ad  maximam  eorum  tristiciam  quod  per 
factum  eiusdem  Ricardi  et  per  subdolas  atque  secretas  suggestiones  ipsius  Dominus 
Rex  habebat  ipsos  Mercatores  de  tali  infamia  plurimum  suspectos,  et  quod  ea  de 
causa  sua  serenitas  assensum  prebuerat  eidem  Ricardo  vt  in  Parliamento  Parisiensi 
causam  suam  quam  dicebat  tunc  adhuc  ibi  pendere  indecisam  prosequeretur  obli- 
gans  eundem  Ricardum  coram  dicto  Abbate  vt  prefertur  vt  causam  ipsam  inibi 
prosequi  non  desisteret  promittens  eidem  Ricardo  assist«nciam  in  facto  prosecucio- 
nis  huiusmodi  ad  finem  vt  eo  modo  malicia  dictorum  Mercatorum  qui  suum  princi- 
pem  difTamare  verentur  fuisset  in  curia  aduersarij  seuerius  vindicata,  ipsi  autem 
Mercatores  qui  se  ex  premissis  apud  maiestatem  regiam  intolerabiliter  lesos  videbant 
non  destiterunt  modis  omnibus  instare  primum  apud  Consilium  Domino  Regis 
postremo  congregatis  Statibus  regni  penes  ipsum  Parliamentura  vt  innocenciam 
suam  super  premissis  ostendcntes  se  ipsos  de  tanta  iniquitate  et  infamia  expurgarent. 
Quod  et  factum  est  et  dcsuper  prefato  Domino  Regi  clarissime  ostensum  ex  falsis- 
simis  suggestionibus  eiusdem  Ricardi  non  palam  set  clanculo  in  angulis  sanctuarij 
factis  insciis  atque  semotis  Conciliariis  Domini  Regis  maiestatem  suam  per  preoccu- 
pacionem  et  circumuencionem  in  concedendo  litteras  et  licenciam  supradictas 
fuisse  deceptam  quodque  iam  dicta  surrepcione  et  falsitate  huiusmodi  nisi  serenitas 
sua  dictas  litteras  et  licenciam  prefatumque  Ricardum  ad  prosequendam  causam 


APPENDIX    I  127 

suam  tantiiininodo  in  Aiiglia  reuocnret  breve  futurum  foret  quod  dissolucretur 
Societas  Stapule  antedicte  de  cuius  prosperis  successilius  pendet  non  tantuin  salus 
dicti  opidi  et  inercanchiaruin  Calesie  set  eciam  totius  comunitatis  regni  Anglic.  Qui- 
bus  raeionibus  maicstas  rcgia  iuste  perniota  scripsit  in  Franciam  vt  causa  ipsa  que 
olim  totaliter  ex  Curia  Parlianienti  Francie  ad  suuin  iudiccni  in  Anglia  rcniissa 
fuit,  ibidem  vlterius  non  agitetur  non  obstantibus  littcris  et  licencia  predictis  in 
quibus  conccndondis  sua  serenitas  ex  falcis  suggcstionibus  prefati  Ricardi  fuit  vt 
proniittitur  cirouniuenta.  Ita  ([uidein  accidit  quod  Hicardus  ille  cui  per  Doininum 
Regem  onmis  iusticia  ouin  fauore  sibi  niinistraiida  in  Anglia  oblata  est  in  despectum 
et  vilipendium  Coronc  Anglie  perseuerauit  in  inalicia  sua  sollicitando  atque  defati- 
gando  externos  principes  et  presertim  Sancissimum  Dominum  nostrum  super  suis 
iniquis  falsis  vanis  et  fieticiis  adinucncionibus  in  finale  extorminium  Societatis 
predicte  nisi  aliunde  dosupcr  prouideretur,  aducrsus  cuius  induratam  maliciam  tres 
Status  regni  Anglie  in  Parlianiento  coiigregati  vniucrsuni  regnum  Anglic  rcpresen- 
tantes  quibus  tarn  ipse  Ricardus  quam  singula  alia  supposita  ipsius  regni  parere 
tenentur  cupientcs  salubriter  prouidcre  edictum  penale  fecorunt  ne  dictus  Ricardus 
prosccucionein  vllam  forensem  illius  cause  que  ortum  habuit  infra  territorium 
Domini  Regis  facial  aut  in  ea  persistat  vUo  modo  set  quod  ad  certum  terminum 
veniat  in  Angliam  causam  eandein  ibi  solomodo  prosecuturus.  A  quo  statuto  sic 
edito  atque  a  prefixione  termini  certisque  iniunctionibus  ex  parte  Domini  Regis  per 
dictum  suum  procuratorem  in  curia  Romana  pro  execucione  prefati  statuti  racio- 
nabiliter  factis  dictus  Ricardus  ad  eandem  curiam  dicitur  appellasse,  cuius  appella- 
cio  si,  ciuod  absit,  admissa  et  exaudita  foret  breve  futurum  esset  quod  omnis  iurisdic- 
cio  temporalis  ex  tali  exemplo  in  manifestam  confusionem  incideret,  quod  non  est 
credendum  S.  d.  n.  aut  ipsani  Romanam  Curiam  velle  quomodolibet  attemptare. 
Et  autem  sicut  supra  recitatur  prcfatus  Ricardus  in  ista  sua  apjjellacione  multum 
insistit  circa  fundandam  iurisdiccionem  Comitis  Flandrie  et  consequenter  Parlia- 
ment! Francie  quoad  cognicioncm  spolij  ita  conunissi  in  Stapula  CaUcie  vt  prefertur 
satis  supra  hec  falsitas  confutata  ct  conuicta  est,  cum  omnes  articuli  intercursus 
inter  Principes  emanati  sunt  reciproci,  non  amplius.  Jus  tribuentes  Comiti  aut  legi 
Flandrie  super  subditos  Regis  pro  spoliis  extra  pcrpetratis  quam  Rcgi  aut  legi  Anglic 
in  subditos  Ducis  Burgundie  pro  lis  que  in  terra  sua  propria  atque  inter  solos  suos 
subiectos  act  sunta.  Inaudituni  est  enim  a  scctis  quod  vnus  Flammingus  traheret 
alium  Flammingum  ad  iudicium  in  Anglia  pro  delicto  in  Flandria  pcrpetrato  cciara 
si  ipsum  delictum  concerncret  bona  aut  mercimonia  postea  deducta  in  Anglia  nee 
potest  racio  dari  quare  magis  vnus  Anglicus  proscquerctur  alium  Anglicum  in 
Flandria  pro  delictis  aut  spolijs  commissis  in  Anglia  Hibernia  aut  Villa  Calicie  quam 
quod  in  predicto  casu  posset  Flammingus  in  Anglia  Flammingum  prosequi  quod  nun- 
quam  fuit  vismn  nee  vWa  princi|)um  conucncione  concossum.  8i  vero  prcfatus  Ricar- 
dus accionem  rei  perseeutoriam  aducrsus  possessores  lanarum  suarum  in  Flandria 
forsitan  intentasset  nee  accionc  pcrsonali  suos  conununicatores  pro  spolio  extra 
commisso  in  vetito  examine  traxisset  in  causam  querela  sua  colorem  aliquem  iusticie 
ita  in  Flandria  implorate  habuissct  vicine  autem  si  quod  per  Anglicos  in  illis  lanis 
perpetratis  extiterat  totum  in  \"illa  Calesie  vbi  omnis  contractus  per  rei  tradicionem 
factam  subditis  Ducis  Ikirgundie  pcrfectus  erat  et  non  in  patria  Flandrie  com- 
mittebatur,  solent  enim  Mercatorcs  Stapule  lanas  suas  semper  in  ipsa  Stapula  ven- 
dere  ita  quod  tota  abinde  vectura  est  ad  onus  et  periculum  emptoruin ;  deniciue  non 
est  relinquendum  intactum  id  quod  sepedictus  Ricardus  Heron'  dicit  de  littcris 


128  APPENDIX  I 

regiis  sibi  datis  sub  magno  et  private  sigillis  eiusdem  Regis  vnde  multi  forsan  coniec- 
turam  caperent  quod  licencia  ilia  prosequendi  non  clanculo  set  potius  palam  per 
iudicium  ConsUiarioram  Regis  data  fuit;  ad  quod  ita  respondetur  non  reperitur 
in  aliquo  officio  huius  regni  cui  magnum  aut  priuatum  sigiUum  Domini  Regis 
deseruit  exemplar  aliquod  huiusmodi  licencie  directe  et  specifice  quam  prefatus 
Ricardus  pretendit  sibi  fuisse  concessam  contra  Mercatores  Stapule  ad  prosequen- 
dum eos  in  Curia  Parisiensi  aut  alibi  extra  regnum  AngUe  si  quid  autem  in  huiusmodi 
Ucenciam  specLficam  sonans  sub  litteris  aut  signatura  Domini  Regis  ostendi  potest 
creditur  scriptum  huiusmodi  sub  annulo  regio  quern  signetum  in  hiis  partibus  vocant 
tantummodo  emanasse.  Secretarius  autem  regius  qui  protunc  erat  et  ad  cuius 
officium  pertinuit  custodia  ipsius  anuli  prout  prefatus  Ricardus  satis  nouit  unus  de 
precipuis  promotoribus  intencionis  sue  apud  Dominum  Regem  fuit,  propterea  quod 
iam  est  annus  et  vltra  dimidiam  dolore  animi  captus  intrinsecus  mortem  obiit,  verum 
est,  quod  maiores  regij  Consilij  non  latuit,  habuisse  atque  exhibuisse  in  publicum 
eundem  Ricardum  sepe  ante  discessum  suum  vltimum  e  regno  AngUe  non  nuUas 
litteras  variis  principum  et  nobilium  sigillis  regnoruni  CasteJle  Legionis  Arrogonnie 
Francie  partiumque  adiacencium  munitas  de  et  super  multis  atque  maximis  pecu- 
niarum  summis  in  quibus  dicti  Principes  et  nobUes  externi  se  et  heredes  suos  bonaque 
et  hereditates  suas  obligarunt  certLs  nobilibus  personis  regni  AngUe  suisque  heredi- 
bus  et  assignatis  pro  redempcionibus  et  financiis  suis  quando  dicti  Principes  et 
nobUes  externi  in  nonnuUis  bcllis  Hispanie  atque  Francie  per  diuersos  Anglicos  capti 
fuerant.  Suggessit  vero  predictus  Ricardus  Domino  Regi  et  nonnuUis  de  ConsiUo 
sue  quod  ipse  obtinuerat  prefatas  litteras  et  iura  eorum  qui  ex  eis  fructum  consequi 
deberent  sibi  cedi.  Quodque  in  mente  habuit  cum  bona  gracia  Domini  Regis  partes 
externas  vbi  heredes  dictorum  obligatoruni  conimorantur  adire  ibidem  pro  iusticia 
super  obligacionibus  huiusmodi  consequenda  prosccucionem  facere  rogans  maiesta- 
tem  regiam  vt  litteras  suas  de  licencia  id  faciendi  conimendaticiasque  sui  et  nego- 
ciorum  que  prosequenda  in  Curia  extraneorum  Principum  susceperat  sibi  graciose 
concedere  dignaretur  forme  autem  litterarum  ex  causis  premissis  ita  generaliter 
emanatarum  multi  ex  Consiliariis  Domini  Regis  conscij  fuerant  non  tamen  per  hoc 
intelligentes  dictam  causam  aduersus  Societatem  Stapule  antedicte  debuisse  aut 
potuisse  quomodolibet  sub  illis  litteris  generaUbus  comprehendi,  sicut  deficiente 
concensu  prefate  Societatis  nee  facta  prorogacione  iurisdiccionis  extraneorum 
Principum  antedictorum  de  iure  comprehendi  non  potuit;  aut  ergo  littere  ipse  quas 
dictus  Ricardus  sub  magno  et  priuato  sigillis  Domini  Regis  iactat  se  habere  sunt  vt 
premittitur  tantummodo  generalcs,  aut  si  fortasse  speciales  super  negocio  aduersus 
prefatos  Mercatores  extiterint  non  potest  aliter  esse  quin  aliquo  extraordinario  modo 
furtiuo  et  surrepticio  propter  iudicia  et  consciencias  officialium  et  consiliarioruin 
Domini  Regis  impetrate  sint.  Et  idee  summe  licuit  Domino  Regi  easdom  litteras 
per  aduisamentum  Consilij  atque  iiiscquendo  acta  Supreme  Curie  Parliamenti  sui 
j)er  alias  litteras  et  decreta  posteriora  modis  omnibus  reuocare  annullare  et  infirmare 
prout  sua  serenitas  iustissime  fecit,  non  ex  dolis  neque  ad  importunam  instanciam 
dictorum  Mercatorum,  sicut  prefatus  Ricardus  eos  diffamat,  set  propria  et  regulata 
mente  sue  regie  maiestatis  tanquam  debentis  et  aliter  non  valontis  suorum  subiec- 
torum  commodis  prouidere,  et  hec  sunt  que  per  Dominos  Consilij  rcgii  dc  mandato 
sue  celsitudinis  inucstigata  comparata  declarata  et  relata  sunt  pro  vera  et  ccrta  in- 
teliigencia  ncgocij  antcdicti.  Quocirca  nos  Edwardus  Rex  Anglic  memoratus  pro 
certo  scientes  relacionem  taliter  per  Dominos  Consilii  nostri  nobis  factam  racioni 


APPENDIX    I  129 

et  veritati  consonam  fore.  Nosque  per  preoccupacionem  et  circumuencionetn 
multipliccm  tueita  veritatc  tarn  predicti  articuli  intercursus  quam  aliorum  articu- 
loruiii  diucrsorum  causam  prcniissam  conccrncnciuin  per  falsas  ot  ficticias  suggos- 
tioncs  prcfati  Ricardi  tales  litteras  et  proniissiones  eidcin  Ricardo  fecisse  et  dcdisse 
que  nunqiiam  a  nobis  si  prcmissoruin  scioli  fuissemus  emanare  debuerant  dicimus 
protestamur  et  declaramus  omnes  et  singulas  litteras  revocatorias  memoratas  ordi- 
nacionemque  per  tres  Status  Parliamenti  nostri  suprascriptos  intiinaciones  moni- 
ciones  et  iniuiictiones  per  prefatum  procuratorein  nostrum  in  eundem  Ricanlum 
factas  a  nobis  de  nostris  mcro  motu  et  certa  sciencia  sine  dolo  calliditate  aut  inipor- 
tunis  instanciis  Mercatorum  Stapule  nostre  predictorum  racionabiliter  et  legiltime 
processisse.  Et  ideo  vniuersitates  vestras  attente  rogando  requirimus  et  hortamur 
in  Domino  quatinus  hiis  littcris  nostris  plenam  fidem  in  omnibus  adhibentcs  nuUam 
decetero  audienciam  prcfato  Ricardo  Heron'  natiirali  subdito  nostro  super  friuola 
et  presuraptuosa  apjjellaeione  sua  eiusmodi  impartiri  velitis.  Set  causam  istam 
prophanam  et  pceuniariam  inter  solos  subiectos  nostros  atque  infra  metas  proprij 
tcrritorij  nostri  vt  prcmisimus  ortum  habentem  que  nuUo  iure  legi  Flandric  aut 
Francic  subiici  debuit  ad  nostra  tribunalia  remittendam  fore  ac  realitcr  remitti 
debere  tarn  apud  S.  d.  n.  quam  alibi  vbi  oportunum  videbitur  modis  omnibus  per- 
suadeatis.  Nos  enim  si  vnquam  antehoc  fuissemus  legittime  interpellati  ad  minis- 
trandam  iusticiam  in  hac  causa,  ita  profecto  partes  equi  iudicis  fuissemus  executi 
quod  super  denegacionc  iusticie  ad  S.  d.  n.  recursum  haberi  non  oportuerit,  promit- 
tentes  insuper  bona  fide  et  in  verbo  regio  quod  si  dictus  Ricardus  iusticiam  nostram 
super  premissis  implorarc  suamque  accionem  aduersus  prefatos  Mercatores  in  aliqua 
Curiarum  nostrarum  intentare  voluerit  tam  sibi  benignam  audienciam  atque  vere 
iusticie  execucionem  facicmus  vt  merito  debeat  contentari.  In  quorum  omnium 
testimonium  atque  fidem  presentem  paginam  magno  et  priuato  sigillis  nostris 
signoque  nostro  manuali  fecimus  roborari.  Datum  per  auisamentum  consilii  nostri 
in  Palacio  nostro  Westmonasterii  prope  London'  xxvij  die  Februarij  anno  r.  n. 
vicessimo  primo. 

p)er  breve  de  priuato  sigillo  et  de  dato  etc. 


APPENDIX   II 


CASES  PUBLISHED  ELSEWHERE 


Parties                           Subject 
Merchants  of  Spain  and  Capture  of  ship  and 
Portugual  f.  Men  of         goods 
Bayonne 

DaU 
1293 

Publication 
Navy  Records  Society,  vol. 
xhv,  pp.  12-18 

Hegham  v.  Brewes 

Contempt  of  court 

1305 

Abbreviatio  Placitorum,  256 

Rex  V.  Bishop  of 
Durham 

Claim  to  Werk  in 
Tj-ndale 

1306-7 

Cole,  Documents  Illustra- 
tive, 129-138 

Suit  of  John  de 
Molyns 

Restitution  of  a  manor 

1346 

Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  20  Edw. 
Ill,  139-141 

Prior  of  St.  Katha- 
rine's 

Forgery- 

1348 

Cal.  Close  Rolls,  22  Edw. 
m,  131 

Rodland  v.  Sp\-nk 

False  Suggestion 

1364 

Cal.  Pat.  Rolh,  38  Edw. 
Ill,  502 

Chamberlains  t'. 
Chesterfield 

Rasure  of  a  record 
Defalcation.    MaUcious 
accusation 

1365 

Cal.  Close  Rolls,  39  Edw. 
Ill,  114 

Audeley  v.  Audeley 

Validity  of  a  pre- 
marital contract 

1366 

Cal.  Close  Rolls,  40  Edw. 
Ill,  237-239 

Prior  and  Convent  of 
Dunstable  v.  Common- 
alty of  Dunstable 

Disputed  liberties 

1366 

Cal.  Close  Rolls,  40  Edw. 
Ill,  302-305 

Petition  of  Merchants 
of  Castile  and  Biscay 

Merchants  of  Aragon  v. 
Admirals 

Seizure  of  ship  during 
truce 

,   Appeal  from  court  of 
admiralty 

1369 
1386 

Baldwin,  King's  Council, 

486-488 

Ibid.  507-510 

Bishop  of  Winchester 

.\n  erroneous  writ 

1389 

Ibid.  510-512 

Cheyne  v.  Brian 

Delivery  of  a  castle 
Forcible  disseisin 

1389 

Ibid.  513-517 

Rex  r.  John  Sibille 

Fraudulent  executors 

1392 

Ibid.  517-520 

Confession  of  Mer- 
chants of  Cornwall 

Illegal  exportation  of 
tin 

1393 

Ibid.  520 

Harpet>'n  v.  Prior  of 
Lewes 

Forcible  disseisin 

c.  139S 

Ibid.  520-5-22 

Barbour  v.  Kyme 

Soothsaying 

1401 

Palgrave,  Original  Au- 

Gunwardby  v.  Tiptoft      Enfeoffment  to  use 

130 


1402 


thorUy,  87 

Baldwin,  op.  cit.  522-523 


APPENDIX 

II 

13 

Parties 

Subject 

Dale 

Publication 

Langcford  v.  Prior  of 

Chattels  in  Trust 

1422 

Nicolas,  Proceedings  of 

Gisburn 

the  Privy  Council,  iii, 
328-331 

Karl  of  Devon  v. 

Feud  and  riot 

1441 

Ibid.  V,  173-175 

Bonville 

Colynson  v.  Cromwell 

False  suggestion. 

1453 

Cal.  Pal.  Rolls,  31  Hen. 

Scandal  of  a  lord 

VI,  93-102 

Mayor  of  Exeter  v. 

Conflict  between  gild 

1477 

Leadam,  Casen  in  the  Star 

Stoden 

and  corporation 

Chamber,  i,  1 

Abbot  of  Bury  St. 

Riot 

1480 

Cal.  Pat.  Rolls,  20  Edw. 

Edmunds  v.  To\vn 

IV,  219 

Taylour  v.  Att  Well 

Conspiracy  and  forgery 

1482 

Leadam,  op.  cit.  C 

Parker  v.  Duke  of 

Forcible  desseisin           ] 

1485-89 

Ibid.  15 

Suffolk 

Attorney  General  v. 

Attaint  of  jury             1486-1507 

Ibid.  18 

Parr 

INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Abduction,  107. 

Account,  12. 

Accountant,  Iv. 

Accounts,  roll  of,  21. 

Acquittance,  Iv,  9,  17. 

Acts,  see  Statutes. 

Adjournment,  4. 

Admirals,  xxNTii,  xxix,  xxx,  Ixxii,  c,  37, 

38. 
Admiralty,  Court  of,  xxviii,  xxix,  xxx, 

XXXV,  xli,  Ixx,  cvii. 
Advowrv,  Advowson,  Iviii,  Ixv,  35,  37, 

92,  93". 
Aid-prayer,  51. 
Aliens,  xxvii,  xxix,  xliv,  xlvii,  lxx\'ii,  13, 

49,  52,  65.    See  also  Foreigners,  Mer- 
chants. 
Allegiance,  xlviii,  1,  7. 
Allowance,  Iv. 
Almoign,  41. 

Amerciament,  xlv,  Ixxxvii,  cvi,  9. 
Ancient  demesne,  civ,  64. 
Amiates,  Ixi,  18. 

Answers,  to  interrogatories,  xliii,  cxiii. 
in  pleading,  xxviii,  xli,  cxv,  64-69. 
Apostolic  See,  Iviii,  20,  22,   121,   122. 

See  also  Papacy,  Pope,  Rome. 
Appeal,  ecclesia.stieal,  7. 

criminal,  xxxvi,  54,  56,  57,  58. 
to  a  higher  court,  47,  125,  127,  129. 
to  Rome,  cx\"i. 
Apprenticeship,  119. 
Arbitration,  xix,  114. 
Arbitrators,  ex. 
Archdeacon,  jurisdiction  of,  \x\i,  Ixvii, 

lx\-iii,  27-31. 
Arches,  Court  of,  li,  6. 
Armour,  Iv,  15,  16. 
Arrest,  Lxxxiv,  95,  107,  109.    Seealso 

Commissions. 
Assault,  107. 
Assays,  15. 

Assize  of  novel  disseisin,  1, 10, 55, 58, 59. 
Assize  of  Clarendon,  lxx.xiv. 
Northampton,  Ixxxiv. 


Assizes,  10. 

Attachment,  4,  9,  11. 

Attestations,  xx\iii,  xxix. 

Attorneys,  xli,  Ix,  ex,  34,  30,  50,  72,  75, 

77,  95,  102.    See  also  King's  Attorney, 

Letters  of  Attorney. 
Auditors,  Auditores  querelarum,  xlix,  4, 

5,  13,  15. 
Aver-du-pois,  Ixxvii. 
Award,  xli,  Ixxv,  cv,  89,  91.    See  also 

Decrees,  Judgment. 

Bail,  Ixxxv.    See  also  Mainprise. 

Bailiffs,  40. 

Barley,  3,  4. 

Barons,  Ivii,  lix,  Ixxvii.    See  also  Lords. 

Barretors,  Ixxxv. 

Beasts  of  plough,  1. 

Beer,  Iv,  17. 

Benefices,  incomes  of,  12. 

Bill,  suit  bv,  liv,  cxv,  2,  4,  5,  10,  47,  48, 

54,  57,  58,  64,  87,  92,  107,  111,  112, 

113.     See  also  Petition. 
Bill  of  the  treasurer,  92. 
Bills  (weapons),  116,  117. 
Bishoprics,  Ivii. 
Blackmail,  lxxx\i. 
Boar,  3. 
Boards,  32. 

Boroughs,  Ixxvi,  Ixxvii. 
Bovatc,  84. 

Bows  and  Arrows,  110,  117. 
Broadcloth,  103. 
Bucklers,  105. 
Bull  (beast),  3. 
BuU,  In  excelso  throno,  22. 
Bullocks,  3,  4. 
Bulls,  papal,  28,  125. 

Canon  Law,  xxv,  xlii,  Ixii,  l.xv,  Ixvi,  Ixvii. 

Capons,  4. 

Captures  at  sea,  cvi,  37,  38,  39. 

Cardinal-legate,  13,  18. 

Carta  Mcrcatoria,  l.xx\i,  Ixxvii. 

Carts  4,  67,  103. 


133 


134 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


Carucatc,  xlvii,  1,  84. 
Certification,  xliv,  cxiii,  19,  36,  37,  40, 
87,  91,  92,  93, 94, 95,  97, 105, 106, 107, 
117. 
ChaUenges,  8,  9,  10,  88. 
Champertors,  lx.xv. 
Champerty,  2. 

Chancellor,  The,  xix,  xxi,  xxiii,  xxxii, 

xxxiii,  xxwi,  xxxN-iii,  xxxix,  xli, 

xlii,  xUii,  Uv,  Ixiv,  Lxx\'iii,  Ixxix, 

ci,  c\-ii,  ex,  cxiv,  49,  83,  92,  107, 

108,  110,  112. 

upon  the  bench,  8. 

and   Council,   xcix,   33.     See  also 

Index  of  Persons  and  Places. 

Chancery,  xi,  xiii,  xiv,  xviii,  xix,  xxvi, 

xxviii,  x.xix,   xxxi,  xxxiii,   xxxiv, 

XXXV,   xhi,   xliii,   xhv,   xlv,  Ixiv, 

Ixv,  Ixxix,  Ixxxiv,  Ixxxviii,   xcLx, 

cxiv,  cxvii,  36,  37,  40,  49,  63,  71, 

72,  73,  74,  82,  97,  98. 

The    Court    of,    xvii,    xxiii,    xxiv, 

xxxii,  xli,  Ixx,  Ixxiii. 
The  King  m,  38. 
The  Council  in,  xxiii,  33. 
Bonds  ill,  cv. 
Enrolment  in,  cix. 
Files  of,  109. 
Recognizance  in,  91. 
Return  into,  36,  37,  40. 
Rolls  of,  xiii,  53,  101. 
Clerks  of,  cLx. 
Master  of  the  Rolls,  xxxix. 
Masters  in,  72,  74. 
Charcoal  and  Saltpeter,  92. 
Charity,  m  work  of,  76,  92. 

in  the  wav  of,  77,  82,  83,  86,  88,  95, 
106,  111,  112,  113. 
Charter,  71,  73,76. 
to  the  Taylors,  74. 
to  Yarmouth,  60-70. 
Charter-party,  77. 
Charters,  xU. 

and  Muniments,  90. 
of  London,  h,  lii,  8. 
of  Yarmouth,  xc. 
Chivalry,  Court  of,  xviii,  boodi,  47. 
Church  and  State,  li,  Ivii. 
Citation,  ecclesiastical,  Ixvi,  Ixvii,  Ixviii, 

27-32. 
Citations  from  Rome,  Ix. 
Civil  Law,  xxxv,  xli,  xlii. 
Cloth,  10,  115. 


Cloth,  hnen,  103,  104. 

woolen,  cxi,  103,  104. 
Cocket,  111,  112. 
CoUation  of  benefices,  Iviii,  lix,  bd,  Ixiii, 

bcv,  19,  21,  23,  25,  26. 
Colt,  4. 

Combat,  Trial  by,  47. 
Commissions,  to  arrest,  xl,  Ixiv,  cii,  41. 
of  gaol  delivery,  liii. 
of  inquisition,   to  inquire,  liii,  xc, 
xcii,  civ,  cv,  cvi,  59,  S3,  85,  87, 
91,  96,  107,  108. 
of  justices,  xUx,  cxii,  cxiii,  105. 
to  do  justice,  95. 

of  oyer  and  terminer,  xvi,  xxix,  xxx, 
liii,   Ixxiv,   lxx\',   lx.xxiii,   Ixxxix, 
ciii,  c\-ii,  c\'iii,  34,  39,  41. 
to  search,  cxi. 
See  also  Justices. 
Committees,  xliii,  xUv. 
Common  Law,  xviii,  xix,  xxii,  xxiv,  xxv, 
xxvi,  xxxii,  xxx\'i,  xxx^•iii,  xx.xix, 
xli,  xlii,  xliii,  xliv,  Uv,  Ix,  Ixiv,  ixx, 
bcxiii,  lx.xiv,  Ixxxii,  xcii,  ciii,  52, 
69,  71,  82,  83,  111,  112. 
Courts  of,  xii,  xxviii,  xxxv,  xlv,  Ivii. 
Common    Pleas,    Court   of,    x\'iii,   xxi, 

XKxi,  l.xiii,  Ixxxiii. 
Commonalty,  The,  52,  68,  75. 
Commons,    The,    .xxvi,    xxxviii,    xxxix, 
Ixxxii,  xci,  xciii,  61,  63,  64,  70,  86. 
House  of,  xcii,  xcv. 
Petition  of,  xciii. 

of    Cambridgeshire,    Bedfordshire, 
Huntingdonshire,   Norfolk,    Suf- 
folk, xciii. 
of  Norfolk  and  Suffolk,  xcii. 
of  Suffolk,  Ixxxiv,  68. 
Complaint,  114.    See  also  Bill,  Petition. 
Confederacies,  xxx. 
Confession,  xxv,  xliii,  Ixxxi,  70,  71,  72, 

73,  74,  103. 
Confession  of  John  Forde,  cxi,  103. 

CONTESSIONS     OF     ChaMBERLAIN     AND 

Martin,  71. 
Conscience,  73,94,  112,  113. 
Conspiracy,  xxx,  87,  88. 
Constable  and  Marshal,  Court  of,  see 

Chivalry. 
Constitutions  of  Clarendon,  6,  29. 
Consultation,  of  the  justices,  xvii,  xviii. 
with  the  king,  xxxii,  23. 
from  the  king's  court,  7. 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS 


135 


Contempt,  Ixiv,  Iwn,  32,  94. 
of  court,  Ixviii. 
of  tlic  King,  6,  7,  39,  94. 
Contract,  of  wool,  127. 
Contumacy,  Ixvii,  30,  31. 
Copyhoklci-s,  cxvii. 
Corn,  Ixx,  cxvii,  17. 
Council,  The,  xi-xlvi. 

Advice  of,  94,  108,  114,  115. 
Chamber,  cii. 

Clerk  of,  XXXV.    See  also  Moleyns, 
Kent,  Langport,  Prophet,  Index 
OF  Persons  and  Pl.\ces. 
Great,  107,  110,  114. 
Jurisdiction  of,  xxvi-xxxv. 
Journal  of,  ci. 
Knights  of,  .xvii. 

Lords  of,  x^•ii,  xxi,  xxxiii,  xlvi,  cii, 
eviii,  cxiii,  89,  90,  91,  107,  110, 
HI,  112,  114,  118,  121,  128. 
Ordinance  of,  89,  94. 
Records  of,  xi,  91,  92. 
in  Parliament,  xx,  xxi,  15. 
Procedure  of,  xxxv-xlvi. 
and  other  courts,  xx-xxv. 
Treasurer  and  others  of,  33. 
See  also  King  and  Council,  King's 
Council. 
Councillors  attending  the  king,  xvi.  See 

also  King's  Councillors. 
Counsel,  xlii,  cxvii,  49,  58,  73,  85,  97,  99, 

115,  118. 
Counterfeiting,  xlii. 
County,  jurisdiction  of  the,  41,  G4. 
Court  Christian,  l.xvii,  Ixviii,  7. 
Covenant,  liv,  16,  47,  58. 

Pleas  of,  10. 
Covin,  85,  88. 
Cows,  3. 

Crown,  The,  li,  Ixvi,  Ixviii,  Ixix,    Ixxi, 
Ixxvi,  lx.xvii,  Lxxxix,xcii,  xciv,xcv, 
6,  8,  19,  23,  25,  26,  127. 
Authority  of,  Ixiv. 
Dignity  of,  Iviii,  Ix,  6,  7,  28,  31, 

32. 
Disinheritance  of,  lix. 
Domains  of,  civ. 
Pleas  of,  liv,  Ixxxiv. 
Prejudice  of,  Ixiii,  83. 
Rights  of,  Ux,  Ixii.    See  also  Kng. 
Curia  Regis,  xiii,  xx,  xxi,  xxxii,  123,  124, 

125.    See  also  King'g  Court. 
Curia,  Roman,  19.    See  also  Rome. 


Customs   duties,    xxxviii,    Ixxii,    Lxxiii, 

Ixxxix,  9,  37,  .38,  64,  67,  111,  112. 
Customs,  manorial,  83,  84,  114,  115. 
Cyder,  3. 

Dagger,  105,  106. 

Dancgeld,  S3. 

Day,  given,  80,90,91. 

Deans  and  Chaplains,  6,  7. 

Debt,  actions  of,  liv,  2,  10. 

Decrees,  x.xiv,  xxv,  xxxiii,  xlv,  Ixiii,  cxvii, 
77,  117,  118.  See  also  Award,  Judg- 
ment. 

Default,  115. 

Defeasance,  58. 

Deliverance,  86,  104. 

Demesne,  civ,  49,  64,  71,  72. 

Demurrer,  xli.  111. 

Denial  of  justice,  124. 

Denizens,  65. 

Deodand,  cvii,  cviii,  11. 

Deposition,  xx.wiii,  106. 

Detention,  85,  86,  95. 

Disseisin,  87,  89. 

Distraint,  Distress,  liv,lv,2, 6,8,9, 12, 16. 

Divorce,  bcvii,  Lxvui,  Ixix,  28,  30. 

Domesday  Book,  ciii,  civ. 

Doublets,  105. 

Dower,  Lxix. 

Dozen,  103. 

Dredge,  3. 

Drink,  106. 

Duphcation,  xxviii,  xli. 

Ejectment,  90. 

Embracery,  ci,  civ. 

Enfeoffments,  civ,  cvi,  71. 
to  use,  xxxiii. 

Englishman  born,  118. 

Equity,  xxiv,  .xxv,  xxxi,  xxxii,  xxxiii, 
xxxiv,  xlii,  xlv. 

Error,  appeal  on,  Ixxxii,  ex,  47. 
writ  of,  112. 

Errors,  49,  53. 

Escheat,  85. 

Escheators,  l.x.xi,  Ixxii,  85. 

Estreat,  9. 

Ewes,  2,  4. 

Examination,  xix,  xxiv,  xxxi-xxxv,  xliv, 
cii,  cv,  cxii,  cxiii,  18,  26,  31,  33, 
58,  59,  65,  79,  80,  88,  89,  91,  92, 
93,  94,  95,  98,  99,  100,  103,  104, 
114,  115,  118. 


136 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Examination,  Articles  of,  105,  106. 

into   the   Bedford   Riot,   cxi-cxiv, 
104-107. 

of  John  Forde,  c.xi,  103. 

inquisitorial,  xlii. 

by  the  king,  52. 

ore  tenus,  xlii. 

under  oath,  xliii. 
Examiners,  xliv. 
Exception,  xh,  xlviii,  Lxxxii. 

peremptor}-,  dilatory,  xUx. 

of  plenarty,  Ixii,  Ixv,  23. 
Exchequer,  The,  xi,  xiv,  xx,  xxx,  xUii, 
li,  lii,  liii,  liv,  cLx,  cxvii,  9,  14,  60, 
66,  67,  99,  101. 

Barons  of,  xvi,  27. 

Chancellor  of,  li. 

Chief  Baron  of,  91. 

Council  in,  xxii,  19. 

in  the  Husting,  Lui. 

Judgment  of,  ex. 

King's  Remembrancer  of,  19. 

Pleas  in,  liii,  liv,  10. 

Process  in,  27. 

Receipt  of,  12,  93. 

Seal  of,  27. 

Stewards  and  Marshals  of,  10. 

Treasurer  and  Barons  of,  liii,  Iv,  15, 
16,  26,  34,  94,  103. 

at  York,  9.    See  also  Treasurer. 
Excommunication,  li,  6,  7,  S. 
Execution,  final,  51. 
ExempUfication,  xiii,  xli,  22,  23,  74,  75, 
97,  98,  107. 

Factors,  111. 

Fair,  of  Scarborough,  68. 

of  Whitby,  68. 

of  Yarmouth,  xcvi,  63,  66,  67,  69, 
70. 
Fealty,  xlvii,  1. 
Fee  farm,  68. 

simple,  51. 
Felonies,  Ixxxix. 
Feoffees,  34. 

Feoffment,  see  Enfeoffment. 
Ferm  of  London,  Iv,  9. 
Ferry,  67. 
Fifteenth,  68. 
Fine,  1,  Ixvi. 

the  Great,  9. 

and  ransom,  cti,  81. 
Fines,  xlv,  Iv,  hi,  lxxx-\ii. 


Fish,    dried,    32.      See    also    Herring, 

Mackerel. 
Fishmongers,  xcix. 
Florins  of  the  Sliield,  38,  39. 
Fodder,  4. 
Forage,  3. 

Forcible  Entry,  xxx,  116,  117. 
Foreigners,  xcii,  xc\'iii,  xcix.     See  also 

Aliens,  Merchants. 
ForestaUing,  xcv,  xcvi,  66. 
Forfeiture,  26,  52,  53,  77,  85. 
Forgery,  xlii,  73. 
Forging  of  Deeds,  cviii. 
Francliises,  10,  60,  61,  82. 

of  London,  \vi,  hixvi,  9. 

of  Yarmouth,  xc. 
Frankahnoign,  1. 
Freeholder,  xl\'ii,  cxvii. 
Freeholds,  xxvi. 

Gauntlets,  16. 

GUd,  75. 

Glaives,  Gleves,  116,  117. 

Goats,  3. 

Gowns  of  Arms,  16. 

Grain,  3. 

Great  Charter,  The.    See  Magna  Carta. 

Great  Seal,  The,  xxxix,  19,  75,  96,  107, 

115,  129.    See  also  Letters,  Writs. 
Greaves,  11. 
Grocers,  Ixxvii. 
Guardianship,  92. 
Guns,  92. 

Hay,  3,  4. 

Hearthpenny,  83. 

Hens,  cxvii,  4. 

Heresy,  xxxiv,  xlii. 

Heretics,  xxxiv. 

Herring,  Ixxxix,  xc,  xci,  xcii,  xcv,  xc\a, 

xcviii,  xcix,  c,  60-65,  68,  76. 
Hidage,  83,  84. 
Homage,  xlvii,  xlviii,  1,  14. 
Horses,  Iv,  4,  11,  12,  16,  67. 
Hundred,  Court  of  the,  84. 
Hundredors,  Ix.xxiv,  64. 
Husting,  the  Court  of,  liii,  9. 

Ill  contract,  122. 

Impeachment,  37,  118. 

Imprisonment,   xlv,   Iv,   Ixxxiv,   Ixxxv, 

xcviii,  12,  109,  111,  113,  114.    See  also 

Prison. 


INDEX   OF  SUBJECTS 


137 


Indemnity,  Ixxii,  xcix. 
Indictment,  xxxvii,  xxxviii,  xlii,  Ixxxiv, 
Ixxxv,  Ixxxvi,  Ixxxvii,  Ixxxix,  ci, 
54,  56,  57,  58,  59,  78,  79,  80,  82, 
84,87. 
false,  cv. 
Indorsement,  xciv. 
Induction,  23. 
Infangenethef,  5. 
Infant,  right  of,  119. 
Information,    x.\.\i,    xxxvi-xxxviii,    xlii, 
xliii,  47,  58,  83,  109,  110.    See  also 
Suggestion. 
Informers,  xxxviii. 
Inhibition,  31,  32. 
Ink,  98,  100. 

Inquest,  cv,  10,  54,  55,  56,  57,  58,  59, 
60,  79,  81,  85,  87,  88.    See  also  In- 
quisition. 
Inquisition,  U,  Ixxiii,  Ixxx,  Ixxxi,  Ixxxv, 
xcii,  6,  7,  39,  40,  59,  60,  61,  66, 
69,  71,  82,  S3. 
ad  quod  damnum,  Ixxxix,  xc. 
post  mortem,  5,  97,  98,  99,  100. 
quo  warranto,  5. 
Inspeximus,  74. 
Instrument,  public,  31. 
Intercursus,     Intercourse,     with     Bur- 
gundv,  cxv,  c\\\,  121,  123,- 125,  127, 
129. 
Interdict,  Lxiii. 
Irons,  12. 

Jambers,  Jambeaux,  11. 

Jewels,  17. 

Judges,    xliv,    Ixxviii,    114.     See   also 

Justices. 
Judgment,  xlii,  li,  iix,  Ixii,  l.xiii,  bdv,  Ixv, 
l.x\Ti,  bcxxiii,  l.xxx^•iii,  l.xxxix,  xcix,  12, 
15,  16,  47,  81,  89,  91,  117,  118.    See 
also  Award,  Decrees. 
Jurors,  Jurymen,  Ixxxi,  cii,  cv,  41,  88. 
Jur>',  Juries,  xxx,  xxv\-ii,  xlii,  Ixxv,  Ixxx, 

l.\.xxiv,  xcii,  1,  10,  16,  56,  64. 
Justices,  The,  xviii,  xx^•i,  xlii,  Lx,  Ixv, 
Ixxxv,  Ixxxvi,  ci,  26,  58,  65,  94, 
95,  105,  109. 
Ad\-ice  of,  xix,  91,  109. 
of  Assize,  xxxi,  Ixx.xvi. 
of  both  benches,  w\,  xxi,  38,  91,  92. 
in  the  Council,  xyxi. 
on  Commii?.sions,  Ixxiv. 
Deliberation  with,  95. 


Justices  of  Gaol  Delivery,  lxxx\'i. 
of  the  King's  Bench,  xxii. 
in    Eyre,    Itinerant,    xx.xii,    xxxv, 

xxxvii,  xlix,  1,  Iix. 
of  Oyer  and  Terminer,  Ixxv,  Ixxxvi, 

Ixxxviii. 
of    the    Peace,    xxx,    xxxi,    Ixxxv, 

Ixxxvi,  Ixxxvii,  ci,  cii,  cxii,  cxiii, 

54,  56,  57,  78,  79,  80,  108,  117. 

See  also  Commissions. 

Keepers  of  the  Peace,  x.xx,  Ixxxv,  Ixxxvi. 
I^g,  The,  in  Chanccrj-,  38,  108. 

and  Commons,  60,  61,  62,  63. 

and  Council,  in  Council,  xi,  xxvi, 
xx.xi,  xxxvii,  xlv,  1,  Iv,  Ixv,  lx\ni, 
Ixx,  l.xxiv,  Ixxix,  Ixxxiii,  Ixxxiv, 
xc,  xcii,  cxiii,  cxiv,  5,  6,  8,  17,  26, 
27,  28,  32,  33,  40,  42,  47,  48,  49, 
52,  58,  63,  70,  74,  78,  80,  81,  87, 
93,  107,  111,  116,  117.  See  also 
King's  Council. 

and  Lords,  xcvii,  68,  76,  80. 

in  Parliament,  cxv,  27,  28,  48,  52, 
68,  76. 

Deception  of,  35,  93. 

Disinheritance  of,  35,  36. 

Endorsement  of,  33. 

Examination  bv,  52. 

Gift  of,  84,  93,  "94. 

in  Person,  27,  28,  29,  31,  32,  52. 

in  Prejudice  of,  23. 

Reference  to,  xlv. 

will  of,  8.    See  also  Crown. 
Bang's   Attorney,   The,   li,   \\vi,    Ixvii, 
cxvii. 

Bench,  The,  xiii,  xx,  xxi,  xxii,  xxiv, 
X.XX,  xx-xi,  xx.xvii,  xliii,  Ixiv,  Ixx, 
xci,  cvi,  82. 

Council,  The,  xi,  xiii,  xv,  xviii,  xx, 
xxii,  xxix,  xxxvii,  xlix,  hv,  Ix-xii, 
Ixxix,  Lxxx^i,  cxii,  cx\'ii,  1,  21,  26, 
33,  35,  38,  44,  47,  48,  72,  74,  76, 
77,  82,  83,  85,  87,  88,  89,  90,  91, 
92,  94,  95,  117,  118,  126,  128. 
See  also  Iving  and  Council. 

Councillors,  The,  xvii,  105,  106, 
118,  126,  128. 

Court,  Courts,  Iix,  Ixiii,  Ixiv,  Ixv, 
cxvi,  6,  7,  60,  64,  72,  90,  108,  109, 
121,  129.    See  also  Curia  Regis. 

Dignitv,  The,  kvi,  6,  7,  28,  31,  32, 
109. 


138 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


King's  Grace,  The,  32, 41,  48,  80,  81,  87, 
92,  101,  109,  117. 
Hand,  The,  xUx,  li,  liii,  Iv,  h-iii,  Ix, 
Lxiii,  Ixxi,  8,  9,  12,  13,  21,  23,  35, 
37,  38,  47,  49.  51,  52,  53.  67,  72. 
Household,  The,  Lx,  115. 
Letters,  The,  c\iii,  58. 
Majesty,  The,  S3. 
Mariners,  The,  Lxx. 
Merer,  The,  cii. 
Palace,  The,  27,  28,  31,  117.    See 

also  Westminster. 
Pleasure,  The,  ba-iii,  8,  26,  32,  48, 

81. 
Prerogative,  ba-iii. 
Proctor,  The,  121,  126,  127,  129. 
Remembrancer,  The,  xiv,  19. 
Right,  The,  73. 
Seal,  The,  63. 
Secretarj-,  The,  cxvi,  128. 
Subject,"ll8. 
Tenants,  The,  68,  83,  84. 
Treasure,  The,  12. 
Writ,  The,  bd,  bdv,  8,  10,  18,  33, 
36,  38,  49,  78,  82,  108. 
Knight  Service,  xlviii,  14. 
Knight's  Fee,  Fief,  xl\Tii,  35,  71. 
Knights  of  the  Council,  x\ii. 

Labourers,  10. 

Lapse,  Law  of,  bdi,  23,  25,  26. 

Last  of  herring,  68,  76. 

Law  of  the  Land,  64.    See  also  Common 

Law. 
League,  Ixxxix. 

Letters,  xli,  Ixi,  xcLx,  cxvi,  47,  77,  96,  99, 
100,  103,  124,  125,  126,  127,  129. 
of  Attorney,  19,  20,  25,  74. 
of  the  Chancery,  26. 
Contradicted,  24. 

under  the  Great  Seal,  bdi,  cxvi,  19, 
107,   125,   128.     See  ako  Great 
Seal, 
of  the  Duke  of  Gueldres,  76. 
of  the  ICing,  cviii,  58. 
Patent,  xxix,  xci,  12,  40,  60,  62,  71, 
74,  75,  92,  93,  94,  97,  102,  114. 
under  the  Pri\'j-  Seal,  cxvi,  27,  50, 

102,  117,  125,  128. 
of    Protection    and    Safe-conduct, 

Ixii,  Ixxii,  Ixxiii,  cxv. 
of  Rouen,  119. 
under  the  Signet,  xiv,  cxvi,  128. 


Libel,  xxy\-. 

Liberty,  Liberties,  5,  6,  7,  8,  40,  82. 

of  London,  lii,  liii,  liv,  Iv. 

of  the  Church  of  Westminster,  32. 

of  Sandwich,  5. 
Liege  Man,  Ligeman,  118. 
Lighters,  66,  70. 
Livery,  Liveries,  .xxxi,  xl\'i,  16,  85.    See 

also  Statutes,  16  Ric.  II,  8  Ed.  IV. 
Livery  and  Maintenance,  cii. 
Lord  Protector,  xix. 
Lords,  xciii,  ciii,  63,  65,  67. 

Appellant,  xxxiv,  xc\'iii. 

and  Commons,  cv,  60,  63,  66,  69, 
86,88. 

of  the  Council,  x^di,  xxi,  xxxiii,  xlvi, 
cii,  c\-iii,  cxiii,  89,  90,  91, 107, 110, 
111,  112,  114,  118,  121,  128. 

House  of,  Ixxxiv,  ci,  cx^ii. 

in  Parliament,  xxi,  xxxv,  63,  68. 

Spiritual  and  Temporal,  81. 

Mackerel,  66. 
Magic,  xxxiv. 
Magna    Carta,    xxx\'ii,    Ixxvi,    Ixxxiv, 

Ixxxv. 
Magnates,  52,  53.    See  also  Lords. 
Mainjjernors,  xl,  Ixxix,  45,  46,  55,  56,  57, 

108,  109,  110. 
Mainprise,  xl,  lxx%-iii,  Ixxix,  Ixxx,  lx.xxi, 
Ixxx"^',  lxxx^•iii,  11,  42,  43,  45,  108,  109. 
Maintainer,  cv,  58,  82. 
Maintenance,  xxx,  xxxi,  xlvn,  1,  ci,  civ,  2, 

58,  116. 
Mare,  3. 
Mariners,  32,  33,  38,  39,  40,  60,  61,  62, 

63,  67,  70. 
Maritime  Jurisdiction,  xx\ii. 
Marriage,  Right  of,  34. 
Marshalsea,  Court  of  the,  47. 
Maslin,  3. 

Masters,  in  chancery,  72,  74. 
of  the  misters',  42. 
of  ships,  38,  39,  41,  61,  62,  63,  76. 
Matrimonial  Causes,  Lwi,  28,  30. 
Mercers,    Mercerj-,    borsd-k-xx,   42-47, 

103. 
Merchandise  of  aliens,  13. 
Merchants,  xiv,  liv,  xcviii,  xcix,  cxi,  33, 
60,  61,  62,  76,  77,  96, 119. 
Genoese,  Ixxiii. 
of  London,  Ivi. 
of  Spain  and  Portugal,  xxxiii. 


INDEX   OF  SUBJECTS 


139 


Merchants,  foreign,  xxix,  Ixx,  Ixxiii,  Ixxvi, 
Ixxvii,  40. 
Strangers,  111,  112. 
Merchant  Taylors'  Company,  74. 
Mint,  Warden  of  the,  15. 
Misteries,  75.    See  also  Mercers. 
Moratorium,  ex. 
Mort  d'aneestor,  Pleas  of,  10. 
Mortmain,  14. 
Murder,  78. 

Necromancy,  xxxiv,  xxxv. 

Noble-s  (coins),  119. 

Notary  Piihlic,  lx\'ii,  Ixv-iii,  22,  24,  25, 

29,  31,  32. 
Novel  Disseisin,  .\Ivii,  1,  10,  55,  58,  59. 

Oath,  Oaths,  xlvi,  cii,  6,  7,  49,  51,  73,  78, 
81,  99. 
in  examinations,  xlii,  xiiii,  33,  74, 

79,  80,  94, 
of  bishops,  6. 
in  inqui.-^itions,  40. 
of  jurors,  83. 
of  the  justices,  bcxiv. 
of  sheriffs  and  escheators,  35,  36, 
57. 
Oats,  4. 

ObUgation,  115,  116. 
Office  (inquisition),  69. 
Official  (ecclesiastical),  Ixvi,  Ixvii,  6,  7, 

22,  24,  27,  28,  29,  31. 
Ordinances.     See  Statutes. 
Ordinary  (ecclesiastical),  6,  28,  31,  32. 
Oxen,  2,  3,  4. 

Pannage,  cxvii,  84. 
Papacy,  Ivii.     See  also  Pope. 
Papal  Court,  Curia,  Iviii,  Ixii,  l.xiii.    See 
also  Rome,  Index  of  Persons  and 
Pl.\ces. 
Paper,  73. 
Pardon,  cii,  cvi,  81. 

Parlement,    Parhaincnt,    of    Paris,    of 

France,  cxv,  123,  125,  126,  127,  128. 

Parliament,  xiii,  xiv,  xx,  xxi,  xxvi,  xxxiv, 

.xxxvii,  xxxviii,  xxxix,  xliii,  xlvi, 

h-i,    lx\iii,    Ixxv,    Ixxvi,    Ixxvii, 

Ixxxiii,  xc,  xci,  xciv,  xcv,  ciii,  cv, 

8,  10,  11,  49,  53,  60,  61,  65,  68, 

89,  90,  91,  94,  121,  122,  123,  126. 

Appeal  in,  xxiii. 

Bills,  Petitions  in,  xviii,  xix,  xciii,  92. 


Parliament,  Commonalty  in,  52. 

Estates  in,  124,  126,  127,  129. 

Full,  52,  62,  66,  69,  117. 

High  Court,  Supreme  Court  of,  x%i, 
125,  128. 

Lords  and  Commons  in,  60. 

Rolls  of,  lii,  ci,  cxvi,  88. 

Time  of,  48. 

in  1294,  8. 

in  1295,  11,  13. 

in  1307,  Ix,  l.xi,  18. 

in  1315,  l.xix,  l.x.xxiv,  27. 

m  1316,  32. 

in  1351,  xc. 

in  1.361,  48. 

in  1366,  Ix.xxviii. 

in  1376,  xci,  xcvi. 

in  1378,  xc,  xciv,  63,  66. 

in  13S0,  xci,  xciv,  67,  68. 

in  1381-82,  xcii,  xciii,  xciv,  ciii. 

in  1385,  xciii. 

in  1386,  74,  76. 

in  1387,  xciii. 

in  1.393,  81. 

in  1399,  93. 

in  1402,  cv,  86,  87,  88. 

in  1430-31,  ex. 

in  1436,  101. 

in  1461,  l.xx-xvii. 

in  1462,  cxvii,  114. 
Partition,  10,  35,  36,  37. 
Pasture,  84. 
Patent  Roll,  cxiv. 
Patrons,  la}-,  Ivii. 
Peace  of  Brdtigny,  52. 
Peas,  3,  4. 

Peasants'  Revolt,  xci,  ciii. 
Pedlars,  61,  64,  67,  70. 
Peers,  ci,  cii.    See  also  Lords. 
Penalties,  xlv. 
Penance,  xxv,  73. 
Perjury,  80,  81. 
Peter's  Pence,  83. 

Petition,  Petitions,  xii,  xiii,  xix,  xxviii, 
xxxi,  xxxA',  xxxvi,  li,  lii,  Ivi,  Ixv, 
Ixx,  Ixxiv,  Ixxv,  Ixxvi,  Ixxviii, 
Ixxxiii,  xc,  xci,  xcii,  xciv,  xcviii, 
cv,  cix,  ex,  41,  49,  52,  54,  60,  62, 
74,  76,  81,  82,  86,  87,  88,  91,  93, 
94,  95,  110,  112,  123. 

to  the  Chancellor,  xxiii,  xxiv,  xxxiii, 
76. 
Petition,  Counter-petition,  Ixxxix. 


140 


IKDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


Petition  of  Grace,  of  Right,  xviii. 
to  the  King,  41. 

in  ParUament,  xvm,  xLx,  xciii,  92. 
Receivers  and  Triers  of,  Lxx.Y\Tii. 
Petition  of  the  Haxsards,  se-\-iii, 

76. 
Pigs,  3. 

Pilgrimage,  7S,  So. 
Pillory,  104. 
Pipes,  manorial,  cxmu. 
Piracy,  Pirates,  xxviii,  xlv,  123,  124. 
Pitch",  57. 

Pleadings,  oral  and  written,  xli,  badi,  cxv. 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Uv. 

in  the  Exchequer,  liv. 
Pledges,  xxx\-ii,   116.     See  aho  Main- 
pernors. 
Plenarty,  Exception  of,  bdi,  ]xv,  23. 
Plough,  Plow,  Beasts  of,  Uv,  2. 
Plough-land,  xl\Tii,  1. 
Pope,  Chief  Pontiff,  The,  hii,  h-iii,  bd, 
bdi,  ]xv,  cxv,  19,  28.    See  aho  Intjex 
OF  Persons  ant)  Places. 
Pope's  Collector,  The,  118. 

Legate,  The,  bd,  18. 
Portas,  Porteous,  Porthose,  86. 
Portmanteau,  47. 
Ports,  bccvii. 
Poulaine,  Poleine,  11. 
Poverty,  82. 
Precept,  5,  6,  29,  32. 
Prerogative,  xxxii. 

Presentation,  35.    See  also  Collation. 
Prison,  xl,  bdv,  bcxLx.  bcxxiii,  bcxxvii,  cii, 
cv,  81,  85,  86,  87,  111,  112.    See  also 
Imprisonment,  Fleet,  Tower  (Index 
OF  Persons  and  Places). 
Privateers,  Ixx,  bcxii. 
PrivA-  Seal,  The,  Clerks  of,  xiv,  xxxvi. 
Letters  under,  cx\'i,  27,  50,   102, 
108,  112,  114,  117,  125,  128,  129. 
Keeper  of,  xiv,  xxxix,  107,  108.    See 
also    Intjex    OF    Persons    and 
Places. 
Warrant  under,  101,  107. 
Writs  of,  xl,  18,  26,  104,  109,  111, 

112,  114. 
Office  of,  cviii,  86. 
Prize,  Ixxiii,  37,  38. 
Procedure  of  the  Council,  xxxv-xlvi. 
Process  (ecclesiastical),  29,  30. 
Proclamation,  lii,  \xv,  107,  110,  115. 
of  Outlawrj-,  xl. 


Proctors,  7. 

Procurement,  88,  111,  112,  113. 

Prohibition,  bdii,  7. 

Protestation  (plea),  51. 

Provisions,  Pro^•iso^s,  Ivi,  Ivii,  Iviii,  lix, 

bf,  bd,  Ixii,  kiii,  bdv,  \xv,  18. 
Proxie,  xh. 
Purveyance,  l^irveyors,  xxx^di,  Iv. 

QuadrupUcation,  xxviii. 

Questions,  Interrogatories,  xliii,  30,  31, 

59,  94,  105.    See  also  Examination. 
Quisers,  Cuissers,  11. 
Quit-claim,  71. 

Rasure  of  Record,  cviii,  cix,  98,  99,  100, 

101. 
Reason,  Reason  and  Conscience,  etc., 

83,  86,  95,  97,  112,  113,  119. 
Recognition,  Recognizance,  ex,  14,  17, 

91,  98,  102. 
Regale,  hdii. 
Rejoinder,  cxv. 

Relation,  to  the  king,  26,  31,  95. 
Relief  (feudal),  Iv,  14. 
RepUcation,  xxviii,  xh,  c,  cxv,  68,  113. 
Reprisals,  Lxx,  xc\iii,  c\a,  c\"ii. 
Requests,  Court  of,  xi. 
Reser^'ation  of  cases,  xx\ii. 
Restitution,  xxiv,  xxxiii,  xlv,  xcix,  33, 

77,  89,  95,  96. 
Riot,  Riots,  XXX,  xxxi,  xxxix,  xliii,  Uii, 
lxx\iii,  kxix,  kxx,  xci,  civ,  107, 
116,  117. 
The  Bedford,  cxi,  104. 
Roman  Church,  The,  122,  125.    See  also 

Apostolic  See. 
Roman  Curia,  Court  at  Rome,  Ivii,  Ix, 

Ixiv,  CX-A-,  cx-vi,  121,  122,  124,  127. 
Romepenny,  S3. 
Routs,  XXX,  ex. 

Safe-conduct,  38,  39. 
Safeguard,  85. 
Salt,  39. 

Sanctuarj',  cxv,  cxvi,  126. 
School,  119. 
Scot,  born,  118. 

Seal,  Seals,  9,  74,  75,  94,  95,  105,  106, 
123,  128. 

of  Commissioners,  97. 

of  the  Exchequer,  27. 

of  Jurors,  40,  41. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


141 


Seal,  Papal,  22,  23. 

of  the  Court  of  Paris,  23. 

of  Rouen,  119. 

to  a  Testament,  73.    Sec  also  Great 
Seal,  Privy  Seal,  Signet. 
Security,  xx.wiii.    Sec  also  Pledges. 
Sendal,  16. 
Serfs,  84. 

Serjeant-at-arms,  xxxix,  cii,  cviii,  37,  44. 
Serjeants-at-law,  xvi,  ci,  cxvii,  72. 
Services  (manorial),  83,  84. 
Sheriff,  Sheriffs,  .\xx,  xxxiv,  xxxix,  xlii, 
Ixxi,  Ixxii,  bcxv,  Ixxxv,  civ,  5,  32, 
40,  50,  52. 

as  Escheators,  Ixxi. 

of  Berks,  83,  84. 

of  Devonshire,  cii,  78,  108. 

of  Hamp-shire,  1 15. 

of  Lincolnshire,  Ixviii. 

of  London,  Ix'viii,  10,  11. 

of  Yorkshire,  lx"viii.    See  also  Mus- 
grave,   Nuttle,   Index  of  Per- 
sons AND  Places. 
Sheriff's    Tourn,    The,    l.xxxiv,    Ixxxv, 

Lxxxvi,  Ixxxvii,  84. 
Ship,  seizure  of,  c,  76. 

Gabriel,  95. 

The  Grace  of  God,  95. 

La  Marie  de  Cygnet,  96. 

The  Saint  Mary  of  Coronade,  37,  39, 
41. 

The  Sainl  Mary  Knight,  76. 
Shirshette,  cxvii. 
Shrievalty  of  London,  9. 
Sign,  of  a  notary,  22,  23,  25. 
Sign  Manual,  li4,  117,  125,  129. 
Signatures,  101. 
Signet  Ring,  xiv,  cxvi,  128. 
Soothsayers,  xxxiv. 
Specific  Performance,  xxxii. 
Spicers,  hacvi. 

Staple,  Society  of  the,  of  Calais,  cxiv, 
cx\',  cx-\-i,  103,  110-113,  121-129. 

of  Bristol,  39,  40. 
Star  Chamber,  xv,  xvi,  Ixxxviii,  117. 

Court  of,  xi,  XV,  xvi,  xxx,  xxxi,  ci. 
See  also  Statutes. 
State  Trials,  xlix,  1,  li,  lii. 
Statutes,  Ordinances,  etc.: 

Westminster  the  First,  3  Ed.  I,  e.  48, 
120. 

Rhuddlan,  12  Ed.  I,  liii. 

Ordinance  of  Money,  12  Ed.  I,  15. 


Statutes,  etc. : 

Westminster  the  Second,  13  Ed.  I, 

Ixxiv,  Ixxxiv,  lxxxvi,  2,  11. 
^\'inchester,  13  Ed.  I,  lxxxvi. 
Carlisle,  35  Ed.  I,  Ixi,  Ixv. 
New  Ordinances,  5  Ed.  II,  liv. 
Lincoln,  9  Ed.  II,  l.xxxv. 
1  Ed.  Ill,  c.  16,  Ixxxv. 
Northampton,    2   Ed.    Ill,    badv, 

Ixxxv,  55. 

4  Ed.  Ill,  c.  2,  Ixxxv. 

5  Ed.  Ill,  c.  9,  xxvi,  xxxvii;    c.  14, 
lxxxvi. 

9  Ed.  Ill,  1st,  c.  1,  bcxvii,  62,  65,  70. 

14  Ed.  Ill,  bcxi,  c\-iii. 

20  Ed.  Ill,  c.  3,  I.xxiv;   c.  4,  xxxi, 

ci;  c.  6,  Ixxi,  ci. 
25  Ed.  Ill,  3d,  c.  2,  \xxvu,  xc,  60; 

5th,  c.  4,  xwi,  xx.xvii. 
of  Provisors,  25  Ed.  Ill,  xv,  Lxv. 

27  Ed.  Ill,  1st,  c.  2,  xxxvii;   c.  6, 
39;  2d,  c.  11,  bcxvii. 

of  Praemunire,  27  Ed.  Ill,  xxiv, 

xxvi,  Ixiv,  bcv. 
Ordinance  of  the  Staple,  27  Ed.  Ill, 

c.  2,  kxiii,  39,  112. 

28  Ed.  Ill,  c.  13,  61,  62,  65. 
Ordinance  of  Herring,  31  Ed.  Ill, 

xc\-i,  63,  65,  66. 
34  Ed.  Ill,  c.  1,  \xxx\i. 
Ordinance  of  Herring,  35  Ed.  Ill,  66. 
38  Ed.  Ill,  1st,  c.  12,  ci. 
of  Praemunire,  38  Ed.  Ill,  xxvi. 
Act  1  Ric.  II,  xxxi,  ci. 
1  Ric.  II,  c.  7,  ci;  c.  12,  15. 

5  Ric.  II,  1st,  ciii,  cxvi;   c.  2,  85 
c.  8,  xx-xii;  2d,  c.  1,  xcii. 

6  Ric.  II,  1st,  c.  11,  xcii. 

8  Ric.  II,  c.  4,  xxvi,  xliii,  cviii,  98 
c.  5,  l.xxxii. 

12  Ric.  II,  c.  10,  Lxxxvi;  c.  11,  xxvi 

13  Ric.  II,  1st,  c.  2,  xviii,  Lxxxii;  c 
5,  xxviii. 

13  Ric.  II,  3d,  xxxi. 

15  Ric.  II,  c.  3,  x.wiii. 

16  Ric.  II,  c.  4,  xxxi. 

17  Ric.  II,  c.  8,  civ. 

1  Hen.  rV',  93;  c.  14,  Ix.xxii. 

2  Hen.  IV,  c.  11,  x.xviii. 
5  Hen.  IV,  c.  7,  cvii. 

7  Hen.  IV,  c.  14,  xxxi. 

13  Hen.  TV,  c.  7,  xxiv,  xxxi,  bdii, 
cxiii. 


142 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


Statutes,  etc. : 

1  Hen.  V,  c.  3,  cvdii. 

2  Hen.  V,  1st,  c.  8,  xxxi. 
4  Hen.  V,  2d,  c.  5,  c%Ti. 

7  Hen.  V,  e.  2,  c\iii. 

9  Hen.  V,  1st,  c.  4,  cix. 
2  Hen.  VI,  c.  25,  cxi. 
4  Hen.  Yl,  c.  3,  cix. 

8  Hen.  VI,  c.  12,  cix;  c.  22,  cxi,  104. 
11  Hen.  VI,  c.  14,  cxi. 

14  Hen.  VI,  c.  5,  cxi. 

27  Hen.  VI,  c.  2,  112. 

31  Hen.  VI,  c.  9,  107. 

1  Ed.  TV,  c.  2,  lx.xxTii. 

8  Ed.  IV,  c.  2,  xxxi,  xxxviii,  xliii. 

1  Ric.  Ill,  baa. 

on  the  Star  Chamber,  3  Hen.  VII, 
xii,  xxxi,  xxxviii,  xlvi. 
Steward  of  the  Household,  ci. 
Stots,  4. 
Straw,  3,  4. 
Sub-chamberlain,  ci. 
Submission,  to  jurisdiction,  xli,  xlv,  U. 
Suggestion,  x.xx^^,  xxx\-ii. 

False,  86,  122,  125,  126,  127,  129. 

Secret,  126.    See  also  Information. 
Suit  of  Court,  84. 

Supphcation,  109.  .See  aiso  Bill,  Petition. 
Surety,  Iv,  11,  58,  109,  111.     See  also 

Mainprise. 
Surveyor,  11. 
Swine,  84. 
Sword,  Swords,  105,  106,  116,  117. 

Targets,  16. 

Taylors,  see  Merchant  Taylors'  Com- 
pany. 

Temporalities,  21,  23,  26. 

Tenants,  free,  83,  84. 

Tenement,  free,  8,  9.    See  also  Freeholds. 

Tenth  and  Fifteenth,  33,  34,  68. 

Term  Time,  Terms,  xvi,  xxiv,  Ixxxviii. 

Testament,  73. 

Thigh  Pieces,  11. 

Tithing,  Totting  Penny,  cxvii. 

Torture,  56. 

Tourn,  see  Sheriff's. 

Traitor,  78. 

Translation  of  bishops,  Iviii. 

Traverse,  58. 

Treasurer,  The,  xxi,  xxx^-iii,  li,  Hi,  liv, 
Ivi,  Ix-xviii,  ci,  33,  92,  105,  106.  See 
also  Index  of  Persons  and  Places. 


Treasureship  of  York,  l.xi,  Ixii,  bdii,  18, 

19. 
Treaty  of  Br^tigny,  49,  51,  53. 
Trespass,  Ixxiv,  Ixxvdii,  lxx.xi,  lx.xxix,  6, 

10,  32,  33,  41,  42,  56,  57,  65,  69,  68, 

76,  81,  87,  88,  111,  113. 
Triplication,  xxviii,  xU. 
Trust,  Trusteeship,  xxxii,  xlii,  115. 

Use,  Enfeoffment  to,  xxxii,  xxxiii,  90. 

Vacancy,  Voidance,  of  benefices,  Iviii, 
Ixi,  Ixii,  Lx\',  21,  23,  25,  26,  35,  36. 

Villeins,  82,  84. 
Virgate,  84. 
Vows,  85. 

War,  with  France,  Iv,  Ivi,  Ixxii,  Ixxxiii, 
10,  49,  51,  53. 

with  Scotland,  Ixx,  118. 
Wars  of  Spain  and  France,  128. 
Wardrobe,  The,  75. 
Wards,  Iv. 
Wethers,  2. 
Whalebone,  16. 
Wheat,  3. 

WUl  of  the  Earl  of  Westmoreland,  cix. 
Wine,  Wines,  Ixxiii,  l.xx^'ii,  cvii,  9,  39,  96. 
Witne.sses,  xlii,  xliii. 
Wood,  87. 

Wool,  Wools,  hv,  Lxxiii,   13,   110,   111, 
112,  122,  123,  127. 

Cotswold,  Clyft,  112,  113. 

Forcing  and  Clacking  of,  cxi. 

Illegal  export  of,  xxxviii. 

Packing  of,  104. 

Trade  in,  cxi,  cxv.    See  also  Cloth. 
Woolfclls,  10,  103. 

Writ,    Writs,    xiv,    xxii,    xxxv,    xxxvi, 
xxx\Tii,  xxxix,  liv,  10,  76,  89,  127. 

of  Account,  11. 

to  arrest,  xxxix,  xl,  82,  95. 

of  Certiorari,  xxix,  xxxviii,  .xlii. 

of  Uedimus  Potestatem,  xliv. 

of  Error,  112. 

of  the  Exchequer,  17. 

of  Fieri  Facias,  2. 

of  Inliibition,  29. 

of  IiKiuisition,  xlii,  39. 

of  the  .Justices,  55. 

of  tlif  King,  see  King's  Writ. 

of  Mandamus,  8. 

Non  obstante,  xviii. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


143 


Writ  of  Partition,  36. 
of  Passage,  85. 
of  Premuuire,  xxxviii,  xxxix,  42,  43, 

50,51. 
to  proceed,  x.\vii. 
of  Proclamation,  cxvii. 
of  Proliibition,  ii,  7. 
Quare  non  admisit,  Lx. 
Quibusdam  ccrtis  de  causis,  xxxviiL 
of  Right,  14. 
of  Scire  Facias,  49,  51,  72. 


Writ,  Stet  processus,  Ixvii. 

of  Subpoena,  xxxviii,  xxxix,  xl,  xlv, 

ci,  cii,  78,  88,  89. 
of  Summons,  12,  33,  50,  78,  80. 
to  surcease,  of  Supersedeas,  xviii, 

xx^di,  xxx^•iii,  Ixiv,  7. 
of  Trespass,  xxx. 
of  Venire  Facias,  13,  40. 
under  the  Great  Seal,  xl,  88,  115. 
under  the  Privy  Seal,  see  Privy 

Seal. 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS  AND  PLACES 


Abberbury,  Richard,  74. 

Abingdon,  Abbot  and  Convent  of,  ciii, 

civ,  82,  83,  84,  85. 
Abingdon,  Richard,  27. 
Acclom,  Aeklam  (Yorkshire),  58. 
Adams,  G.  B.,  xxxii. 
Alard,  Gen'aise,  32. 
Alford,  Thomas,  89,  90. 
Almain,  c,  76. 
Anagni,  20. 

Angouleme,  Isabella  of,  5. 
Aragon,  128. 

Ardern,  Arderne,  John,  48. 
Arundel,    Beatrice,   Countess   of,    evii, 
cviii,  96. 
Richard  Fitzalan,  Earl  of,  admiral, 

38. 
Thomas  Fitzalan,  Earl  of,  80,  96. 
Ascot,  civ. 
Ashley,  John,  93. 
Atte  Wode  v.  Cufford,  civ,  86. 
Atte  Wode,  Atwood,  John  and  Alice,  cv, 

cvi,  86-91. 
Audeley  v.  Audeley,  xxxii. 
Austin,  a  Friar,  xxxii,  85. 
Avenel,  John,  captain  of  Brittany,  Ixxii, 

bodii,  37-40. 
A\-ignon,  bdii. 
Aylestone,  John,  46. 
Aylward,  Nicholas,  83. 

Baier,  H.,  Ivi. 

Baispole,  Henry,  25. 

Balderly  (Yorkshire),  boondii. 

Baldok,  Robert,  bdii. 

Baldwin,  J.  F.,  xiii. 

Bangor,  Bishop  of  (Richard  Yonge),  86. 

Bar,  Barr,  Bar-le-Duc,  Henrj',  Count 

of,  19,  24,  28. 
Joan  of,  l.wi,  bcAii,  Ixix,  28,  29,  30, 

31. 
Theobald  of,  hx,  l.\i,  Ixii,  19,  23,  24, 

25. 
Bardi,  Company  of  the,  Ixx-vil. 
Barton,  Alexander  de,  Ixxxviii. 


Barton  St.  John's  (Oxfordshire),  97. 

Bas,  John,  89,  90. 

Bath  and  Wells,  Bishops  of: 

William  de  la  ^larehe,  see  Marche. 

John  Stafford,  101,  102,  104,  106. 

Thomas  Beckington,  108. 
Bayeaux,  Guido,  Bishop  of,  xlvii,  1. 
Beauchamp,  Guv  of,  18. 

Richard,  117. 

Thomas,  cv. 

William,  cv,  87. 
Beaufort,  Joan,  Countess  of  Westmore- 
land, cbc,  ex,  102. 
Beaumont,  Sir  John,  79. 

WiOiam,  80. 
Beddington,  Nicholas,  42,  44,  45. 
Bedewj-nde,    Walter   of,    Treasurer   of 

York,  bd,  Ixii,  bciii,  bcv,  lS-27. 
Bedford  Riot,  The,  cxi-cxiii,  104-107. 
Bedfordshire,  xl,  xc,  cxi,  cxiv,  61,  64,  67, 
106. 

Undersheriff  of,  c.xiii. 
Beiroto,  Jolin  de,  22,  23. 
Beket,  Thomas,  45. 
Benet,  John,  83. 

Benfeld,  Benefeld,  John,  83,  84,  85. 
Bentley,  Sir  Walter,  Captain  of  Brit- 

tanj',  bcxiii,  37. 
BenjTigton,  Simon  de,  bcxx. 
Berghe,  William  atte,  40. 
Berkeley,  Sir  John,  cv,  87,  88,  91. 
Berkshire,  xlvii,  ciii,  82,  83,  84. 
Berne,  John,  43,  44. 
Berneye,  Walter,  42,  43,  44. 
Bernham,  Geoffrey,  Ixxbc,  42,  43,  44. 
Beverley,  Thomas  de,  Ixxxviii. 
BilljTigford,  James,  clerk,  72. 
Bishop  of  S.\bina  v.  Bedewynde,  Ivi 

18. 
Blackfriars,  35. 
Blakeney,  33. 
Blaunk,  John,  39. 
Blois,  Charles  of,  37. 
Blount,  Examination  of  Gilbert,  xlii, 
33,  34. 


144 


INDEX   OF   PERSONS  AND   PLACES 


145 


Bobbingworth  (Essex),  92,  93. 

Bochcl,  Francisco,  Ixxxi. 

Bois,  John  of,  34. 

BoisTAiiD  r.  CuMBWELL,  xxi,  xlvii,  1. 

Boistard,  Boystard,  John,  1. 

I?ogor,  xlvii,  1. 

Wahor,  1. 
Bokley,  alias  Messager,  Geoffrey,  109. 
Bole,  Henry  le,  Iv,  11. 
Bolingbroke,  Roger,  xxxiv. 
Bone,  John,  of  Wallingford,  liv,  17,  18. 
Bonevill,  William,  108. 
Bordeaux,  cvii. 

Borough,  Burgh,  Thomas,  117. 
Boston,  Ixx,  32,  1)5. 
Bottcl.'^ford  (dio.  Lincoln),  25. 
Boulogne,  Honour  of,  71. 
Bourchicr,  William,  108. 
Bowdon,  Thomas,  2,  4. 
Bo'mnan,  Boman,  Hubert,  76,  77. 
Brabant,  122,  124. 

Brackcdcn,  Brakedeu,  Bracon  Ash  (Nor- 
folk), Ixvii,  28,  30. 
Bracton,  x.\i,  xl^-iii. 
Bradenham,  Leon,  34. 
Bradew'jec  (Norfolk  ?),  30. 
Branston  (Derbj-sliire),  41. 
Brantcston,  Walter  of,  30. 
Braughin,  Braghing,  Elijah,  ]xxx,  45. 
Bray,  William  dc,  ixviii. 
Brembre,  Nicholas,  xcra,  xc\'iii,  74,  75. 
Brentwood  (Essex),  73. 
Bret,  Walter,  42,  44. 
Br6tign\-,  Treaty  of,  49,  51,  53. 
Bretone,  John  le,  9. 

Brewes,  Breus,  Braose,  Sir  William  of, 
liv,  16. 

Peter  of,  36. 
Brighton      Atlingworth,      IMichelham, 

Lewes,  96. 
Bristol,  38,  39,  40. 
Brittan}',  Ixxiii,  Lxxxi,  cvii,  37,  41. 

Captain  of,  Ixxii,  Ixxiii. 

Duke  of,  cii. 
Britton,  xxii,  xlvui. 
Brixham  (Devon),  119. 
Brokct,  William,  cix,  97-101. 
Brown,  John,  44. 

William,  112. 
Bruges,  cxv. 

Brugge,  Brugo,  Brigg,  Thomas,  87,  91. 
Brunby,  William  de,  Ixxxviii. 
Bryseley,  Henry,  46. 


Buckinghamshire,  xl,  cxi,  49,  61,  64,  67. 
Buhner  (dio.  York),  25. 
Bures,  John,  ShcrifT  of  I.iondon,  42,  45. 
Burgh,  Hubert  de,  xxxviii. 
Burgundv,  Duke  of,  cxv,  122,  123,  125, 
127. 
Treaties  with,  cxvi,  121,  129. 
Burleston,  William,  79,  80. 
Burstall,  William,  44. 
Burton,  Henrv  (?),  72. 

Gilbert,  83. 
Burton-on-Trent  v.   Meynell,   xix, 

bcxiv,  41. 
Burton-on-Trent,  Abbot  and  Convent 

of,  Ixxiv,  bcxv,  41. 
Bush,  Bussh,  John,  Ix,  l.xii. 
Buwman,  Gerard,  c. 
Buxton,  William,  xxxiv. 
Byemcs,  John,  Sheriff  of  London,  45. 

Cade,  Jack,  xxxix. 
Caesar,  Sir  Julius,  xi. 
Calais,  cxi,  cxv,  123. 

Staple,  Staplers  of,  cxiv,  cxv,  cxvi, 
103,  110-113,  121-129. 
Caldecote  Castle,  87. 
Cambridge,  85,  86. 

Castle,  48. 
Cambridgeshire,  xc,  61,  64,  67. 
Cantebrigg,  Thomas,  27. 
Canterbury,  Archbishop  of,  xxv,  lix,  96. 
Archbishops  of: 

Stephen  Langton,  28. 

Edmund  Rich,  2. 

Boniface  of  Savoy,  2. 

Robert  Winchelsea,  Ivi. 

Simon  Sudbury,  73. 

William  Courtcnay,  80. 

Thomas  jVrundel,  89. 

Henry  Chicheley,  101. 

Thomas  Bourchier,  115. 
Canterbury,  See  of,  6. 
Cantuaria,  Ralph  dc,  l.xix. 
Cardinals,  13,  18. 

Otho,  bcvi,  30. 

Stephen  Langton,  28. 

Simon  de  Beaulieu,  13. 

Berard  de  Gouth,  Got,  13. 

Peter  of  Sabina,  IS,  19,^26. 

Francis  Gaetano,  20. 

Hcnrj'  Beaufort,  102,[l08,  118. 

John  Kemp,  109. 
Carlisle,  bd,  18. 


146 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS  AND  PLACES 


Carter,  Simon,  5,  6,  7. 
Carters,  61,  64,  67. 
Castile,  128. 
Castro  in  Spain,  39. 
Causton,  William  de,  43. 
Celers,  Joan,  xxiii. 
Celj'  Papers,  cx%'. 
Cely,  Richard,  112. 

CH.4MBERIAIN,   Confession   of  Wil- 
liam, .xy\-,  71,  72,  73. 
Chamberlains  v.  Chesterfield,  xliii. 
Chancellor,  The,  see  Index  of  Subjects. 
Chancellors : 

Walter  Grey,  2. 

Godfrey  Giffard,  5,  6,  7. 

Ralph  Baldock,  18. 

John  Hotham,  Lxxxiv. 

John  of  Thoresby,  33,  38. 

Simon  Langham,  49. 

Simon  Sudbury,  73. 

Michael  de  la  Pole,  xxxiv,  72,  73. 

William  of  Wykeham,  76,  77. 

Thomas  Arundel,  80. 

Edmund  StaflFord,  86,  89,  91. 

Thomas  Langley,  95. 

John  Stafford, '92,  101,   102,  104, 
106. 

John  Kemp,  108,  109. 

George  Xe^^lle,  114,  115. 

Thomas  Rotherham,  117,  118. 
Chartres,  47. 

Chaumberle^Ti,  Robert,  41. 
Chedworth  (Glouc),  cv,  86. 
Chemerswcll,  ChisweU  (Berks),  1. 
Chester,  Bishops  of : 

Richard  le  Scrope,  ci,  80. 

John  BrugliiU,  88. 
ChejTiey,  Che>Tie,  John,  89,  91. 
Chichester,   Bishop  of   (Richard   Mit- 

ford),  80. 
Chichestre,  John  de,  Ixxx. 
Christchurch,  Chrichurch,  115. 
Chudlegh,  Chudlev,  Sir  James,  cii,  79, 

80. 
Cinque  Ports,  xx^'iii,  13,  63,  65. 

Barons  of  the,  .xcnt. 

Warden  of  the,  l.xx,  l.\.\ii. 
Citizens  of  London  v.  the  Bishop  of 

Bath,  li-hn,  8-18. 
Claisson,  Arnold,  96. 
Claiston,  Withman,  76,  77. 
Clambek,  Glambek,  Gerard,  c,  76,  77. 
Clare,  Nicholas  of,  12,  13. 


Clerk,  John,  of  Ewell,  71. 
Clej-saloe,  merchant  of  Flanders,  13. 
Clifford,  Sir  James,  civ,  cv,  c\a,  86-91. 

Roger,  bcxxix,  59. 

the  family  of,  87,  n. 
Clifton,  Adam  of,  35,  36. 
Clode,  C.  M.,  xc\-iii. 
Clopton,  Sir  William,  71-74. 
Cob\Tigdon,  John  of,  mavor  of  Bristol, 

39. 
Cockerton,  Robert  of,  Ixvii,  29. 
Cok,  John,  mercer,  cxi. 
Coke,  Sir  Edward,  xi,  xii,  .x\',  xix,  Lxxxi. 
CokejTi,  John,  Ixxv. 
Colby,  John,  escheator,  36. 
Colchester,  103. 
Colonna,  John  de,  \x,  bd,  24. 

House  of,  19,  22. 
ColweU,  Geoffrey,  45. 
Colwey,  116. 

Coh-ngbome,  Colingbourn,  John,   115, 
116. 

William,  115,  116. 
Combe,  Abbot  of,  14. 
Comber,  Clement,  103. 
Compaignon,  Anthony,  37,  39,  41. 
Conisborough  Castle,  lx\dii. 
Constable,  Lawrence,  45. 
Conj-ngsby,  Coningsby,  William,  47,  48. 
Cook,  Master  Thomas,  118. 
Coppleston,  John,  79,  80. 
Corbet,  John,  83. 
Corbridge,  Thomas  of,  canon  of  York, 

24. 
CorneUis,  Peter  de,  22. 
Comu,  Walter,  of  Horwood,  79. 
Cornwall,  Ixxi. 

Cornwall,  Sir  John,  see  Fanhope. 
CosFELD  I'.  Leatits,  -xxviii,  Ixx,  32. 
Cosfeld,  Godkin  de,  l.xx,  32. 
Costantyn,  John,  xc\-iii. 
Cotes,  Geoffrey,  Ixiii,  Ixiv. 

Walter,  57,  58. 
Cottesmore,  John,  100. 
Court,  Grote,  of  Kampen,  95. 
Courtenay,  Edward,  see  Devonshire. 

Philip,  77. 
Cove,  Henry,  Ixxix,  bcxx,  42-46. 

William,  42,  43,  44,  46. 
Coventry,  115. 
Co  well,  John,  xi. 
Cowley  (Glouc),  89. 
Cranle,  John,  103,  104. 


INDEX    OF   PERSONS   AND   PLACES 


147 


Crnnmorp,  John,  83. 

Cranswick  (Norf.),  l.wii. 

Cranswick,       Craunsewj'k,       William, 

Ixxxiv,  56,  57. 
Credy,  Thomas,  serjeant-at-arms,  cii,  79. 
Cressage  (Shrops),  94. 
Cromwell,  Humphrey  Bourchier,  Lord, 
114. 
Ralph,  Lord,  cxi,  103,  105,  106. 
Cumberland,  Ixxi. 
Cumbwell,  Philip  of,  1. 

Dachet  (Bucks),  50. 

Dacre,  Richard  Fenys  or  Fiennes,  Lord, 

114,  115. 
Daglingworth  (Gloue.),  87. 
Dagworth,  Sir  Thomas,  captain  of  Brit- 
tany, Ixxii,  37. 
Dalingrupg,  Dalynrigg,  Sir  Edward,  ci. 
Dalton,  William,  Ixxxviii. 
DAm'ERS  ('.  Broket,  xxxvi,  xlv,  cviii,  97. 
Danvers,  John,  97. 

Robert,  justice  of  common  pleas, 
cviii,  cLx,  97-101. 
Dartmouth,  119. 
Da\t,  John,  Sureties  of,  xl,  108,  109, 

110. 
Delbriick,  77. 

Dengolesme,  Itier  (Iterius  Ingolisma),  15. 
Denton  (dio.  Norwich),  35. 
Deoffe,  Edward,  of  Fowy,  41. 
Derby,  Henry  Earl  of,  80.     See  ako 
Henry  TV. 

John,  73. 
Derhurst,  John,  cv. 

Dersham,  GeofTroy,  sheriff  of  Essex,  72. 
Devonshire,  l.xxi,  ci,  7S,  107. 

Edward  Courtenay,  Earl  of,  xxxix, 
ci,  cii,  77-81. 

Sheriff  of,  cii,  78,  108. 
Dicey,  A.  V.,  xi,  xx. 
Doncaster,  a  scribe,  73. 
Dorset,  bod. 

Dortrecht,  c,  evii,  76,  77. 
Dover,  86. 

Drayton  (O.xf.),  116,  117. 
DrokeiLsford,  John  of,  Ux. 
Dudley,  John,  117. 
Dunstable,  xxiii. 
Durham,  Bishops  of: 

Walter  Skirlaw,  ci,  80,  86. 

Thomas  Langley,  88,  101. 

William  Dudlev,  117,  118. 


Duval  v.  .Xrundel,  xxix,  xxx,  cvii,  96. 
Duval,  William,  of  Kouen,  cvii,  96. 

Earl  Marshal  (Thomas  Mowbray),  The, 

80. 
Easthampstead  (Berks),  50. 
Eastland,  Eastlanders,  Ea-sterlings,  Ixx, 

xcviii,  c,  32,  114. 
East  Mcon  (Hants),  cxvi,  cxvii,  114. 
Ecclesiastical       Courts      Commission, 

xxxiv. 
Edmondes,  Richard,  116. 
Edmund  of  Lancaster,  16. 
Edward  the  Confessor,  28. 
Edward    I,   xvi,   xvii,   xx,   xxii,   xx,xvi, 
xxxviii,  xlii,  xlix,  1,  Liii,  Iv,  lix,  Ix, 
Ixiii,  Ixvi,  Ixxi,  Ixxiv,  Ixxvi,  2,  5, 
18,  25. 
n,   lii,   Ixii,   Ixiii,   Ixvi,   Ixviii,   Ixx, 

Ixxii,  lxx\-i,  Ixxvii,  26,  51. 
HI,  xviii,  xxii,  xxiii,  xxxvii,  xlii, 
Ixiii,  Lxiv,  Ixx,  Ixxii,  Ixxxiii,  kxxix, 
xc,  xciii,  xciv,  xcvi,  33,  37,  39,  40, 
48,  49,  50,  54,  60,  61,  63,  65,  74, 
97. 

IV,  l.xxxvii,  cxiv,  cx^i,  80,  114,  115, 
117,  118,  125,  128. 

V,  Ixvi. 

Edward,  Duke  of  York,  l.xx.\iii. 
Elesdon,  EUesdone,   John,  mercer,  42, 

44. 
Ely,  Bishops  of: 

John  Hotham,  lxx.xiv. 

Simon  Langham,  49. 

Philip  Morgan,  101. 

William  Grey,  114. 
Enderby,  John,  Esquire,  cxii,  cxiii,  105, 

106. 
Enfeld,   Enfield,   Thomas,   father  and 

son,  92. 
Erlegh,  Erley,  John  of,  Iv,  14,  18. 

Pliilip  of,  14. 
Erpinghain,  Sir  Thomas,  xxxviii,  89,  91. 
Essex,  xc,  xciv,  61,  67,  74. 

Sheriff  of,  71,  72. 
Estfeld,  William,  merchant,  103. 
Estry  near  Sandwich,  1,  5. 
EsTCRjn-  V.  Courtenay,  ci,  77. 
Esturmy,  Maud,  78. 

"Sir  William,  cii,  77-81. 
Etwell,  Harry,  of  Putnoe,  cxiii,  105,{106. 
Eustace,  John,  40. 
Evaignes,  Peter,  merchant,  39. 


148 


INDEX    OF   PERSONS   AND    PLACES 


Everard,  Adam,  mercer,  42,  44. 

Alan,  Alain,  42-46. 

Thomas,  Ixxix,  42—46. 
Everdon,  John,  baron  of  the  exchequer, 

27. 
E\Teux,  22. 
Exeter,  Bishops  of: 

John  Grandison,  xliii. 

Edmund  Stafford,  86,  89,  91. 

George  Neville,  114,  115. 

Fabel,  Jolin,  34. 

Mary,  34. 

Thomas,  33,  34. 
Fabvan,  chronicler,  cxiv. 
Falkbome  (Essex),  33,  34. 
Fallan,  William,  clerk,  cxi,  103. 
Fanhope,    Faunhope,    John    Cornwall, 

Lord,  exii,  cxiii,  cxiv,  105,  106. 
Fauconberg,  William  Neville,  Lord,  ex, 

101,  102. 
Fermer,  Sir  John,  34. 
Ferrers,  Sir  Ralph,  xliii. 

Walter  Devereux,  Lord,  117. 
Ferj-e,  Thomas  atte,  serjeant  at  arms, 37. 
Fiennes,  Family  of,  48. 

Robert  de,  lx.\xiii,  48-53. 
Finchden,  William,  justice,  55,  56,  57. 
Fishlak,  Fishlake,  church  of,  Ixiii. 
Fitz,  John,  of  Westhav,  c.xii,  cxiii,  105, 

106. 
Fitz  Geffrey,  Geoffrey,  John,  105. 
Flamy,  Reymund,  Lombard,  Ixxxi. 
Flanders,  Count  of.  Court  of,  Ixx,  76, 

121,  122,  124,  125,  127,  129. 
Folk,  John,  Esquire,  SO. 

Isabella,  107. 
Forde,  Joan,  107. 

John,  mercer,  cxi,  103,  104. 

William,  107. 
Forester,  Henry,  l.xxx,  Ixxxi,  42-46. 
Forster,  Humphrey,  Esquire,  117. 
Fortescue,  Sir  John,  xi,  xvii. 

John,  of  Punsbornc,  117,  118. 
Foss,  Edward,  eviii. 
FouQuiRE  V.  Nicole,  xxxiv,  118. 
Fouquire,  Cieoffrey,  Gcr\'aise,  and  Jac- 
quelot,  IV.i 

William,  118-120. 
Foxle,  John,  baron  of  the  exchequei727. 
Frampton  upon  Severn,  87. 
France,  king  of,  xlvii,  xlviii,  1,  121,  124, 
128,  129. 


Frank,  John,  clerk,  98. 

Fraunceys,  Robert,  Ixxv. 

Fray,  John,  baron  of  the  exchequer,  103. 

Frethorn,  parson  of,  cv. 

Fry,  Robert,  clerk,  88,  n. 

Fulthorpe,  Roger,  justice,  55,  56,  57. 

Fyfield  (Essex),  92,  n. 

Fyncheden,  Wilham,  justice,  Ixxxix. 

Fj-nk,  Vink,  Conrad,  xcix,  c,  76,  77. 

Gadesby  (Leicester),  13. 
Gaetano,  Francis,  Cardinal,  l.xi,  20. 

Francis,  treasurer  of  York,  l.x-lxiii, 
20,  25,  26. 

Thomas,  20. 
Galyot,  Walter,  40. 
Garton,  Robert,  lx.\xviii. 
Gascony,  xlLx,  Iv,  13,  16. 
Gaunt,  John  of,  Duke  of  Lancaster,  xc, 

xci,  xciv,  xcv,  xcra,  63,  80. 
Genoa,  Genoe.se,  lx.xii,  Ixxiii,  37,  39. 
Gerald,  John,  91. 

Gerdeston,  Thomas,  archdeacon  of  Nor- 
wich, Ix^i,  lx•^•ii,  27. 
Gibbs,  John,  91. 
GiFFARD  V.  Morton,  xv,  107. 
Giffard,  John,  108. 

Thomas,  107. 

Wihnot,  107. 
Gisors,  Gysors,  Sir  John,  alderman  of 
London,  hv,  9. 

Margery,  9. 
Gloucester,  66,  87,  88. 

Castle,  87. 
Gloucester,  Eleanor,  Duchess  of,  xxxiv. 

Humphrey,  Duke  of,  101,  102,  104, 
106,  118. 

Thomas,  Duke  of,  80. 
Gloucestershire,  ci\-,  87. 
Gold,  John,  of  Weymouth,  76. 
Gosselyn,  Nicholas,  97. 
Goule,"  William,  bailiff,  5-8. 
Gourney,  Richard,  de  Ilarpetrc,  41. 
Gouth,"Got,  Bcrard  do,  Cardinal,  13. 
Gouys,  William,  79. 
Graham  (Line),  l.xix. 
Grantham  (Line),  Ixix. 
Grantham,  William,  46. 
Gray,  Thoma.s,  56,  58. 
Greene,  Henry,  Ix.w. 
Grenville,  Sir  John,  sheriff  of  Devon, 
cii,  78,  79. 

William,  sheriff  of  Devon,  ci. 


INDEX    OF    PERSONS   AND    PLACES 


149 


Gretowelle,  Groewoll  (Line),  Ixix. 
Grey,    Lord,    of    Ruthin,    cxi,    cxii, 
cxiii. 

Sir  Thomas,  117. 
Gucldrps,  Duke  of,  76,  78. 
Guildford,  Gildford,  Andrew,  serjeant- 
at-arms,  39,  40. 
Guines,  Guysnes  (Picardy),  118. 
Guise,  Gyse,  Amice,  SO,  90. 

Anselni,  cv,  cvi,  87,  91. 

Wilham,  90. 
Gunthorp,  Master  John,  118. 
Gunwardby  f.  Tiptoft,  xxxiii. 
Gyene,  Simon,  40. 
Gyldenacre  (Middlesex),  cvi. 

Habhale,  John,  93. 

Hale,  Sir  Matthew,  xi,  xii,  xx,  1. 

Halewe\'e,  Robert,  40. 

Haliwell,  Prioress  of,  9. 

Haller,  J.,  hi. 

Halle,  Halles,  Jennequin,  96. 

Hamburg,  Ixx. 

Hamilton,  William,  Lxi. 

Hampshire,  cxvi. 

Sheriff  of,  115. 
Hankford,  William,  lawj'er,  79. 
Hansards,    Petition    of    the,    xxiv, 

xcviii,  76. 
Hanseatic  League,  Hanse,  Hansers,  Ixx, 

xc\'iii,  xcLx,  76,  78. 
Hanson  (Derby),  41. 
Hareourt,  Sir  Richard,  118. 
Hartlebury  (Wore),  li. 
Hastings,  William,  Lord,  1 14. 
Hatfield  Peverell  (Essex),  33,  34. 
Hauke,  William,  yeoman,  116. 
Havering,  John,  83. 
Hay,  Gerard  de  la,  clerk,  98. 
Haye,  Roljert  de  la,  parson,  50. 
Hendeston,    William,    justice    of    the 

peace,  108. 
Henrison,  Henrichson,  Alard,  of  Kam- 

pen,  76. 
Henry  II,  xvii. 

III,  xxi,  xlvii,  xlviii,  xlLx,  Iv,  Lxxi, 
body,  1,  5,  9,  14. 

IV,  xxxiii,  xxxviii,  c,  cxii,  86. 

V,  xxxix,  cvi,  cxii. 

VI,  xl,  kxxvii,  cxiv,  97,  108,  109, 
110,  118. 

VII,  xii,  XXX. 

VIII,  XXX. 


Hereford,  Bishop  of,  lix,  5,  n. 

John  Trevenant,  .\xxiv,  80,  86. 
Hereford,  \\'illiam  of,  Iv,  16. 
Herpecote,  Thomas,  83. 
Hertford,  Sir  Robert  of,  13. 
Hcrtlcbury  Castle,  7. 
Hertling,  John,  king's  yeoman,  36. 
Heryng,  Edmund,  clerk,  72. 
Heserton,  Sir  Simon,  Ixxxiv,  56,  57. 
Hcynson,  Heynours,  Warner,  c,  76. 
Heybon  v.  Proute,  cxiv,  110,  121. 
Hevron,  Richard,  merchant,  cxiv,  cxv, 

cxvi,  110-113,  121-129. 
Hillary,  Roger,  justice,  Ixxiv,  n. 
Hilpcrton,  Hulprinton  (Wilts),  2,  4. 
HoGONONA  V.  A  Fkiar  Austin,  xxxii, 

85. 
Hogonona,  Nicholas,  chaplain,  85. 
Holdsworth,  W.  S.,  xxxii. 
Holme,  John,  clerk,  30. 
Holmes,  O.  W.,  xxxii. 
Holte,  William,  112. 
Holton  (Xorf.),  93. 
Holland,  122. 
Holland,    John,    captain    of   Brittany, 

Ixxiii. 
Honybourne,  Robert,  40. 
Horbury,  William,  clerk,  72. 
Horde,  Henry,  merchant,  115. 
Hotham,     Sir     Jolui,     l.xxxiii,     Ixxxiv, 
lxxx\iii,  Ixx.xix,  56-60. 

Nicholas,   Esquire,   Ixxxiii,   Ixx-xiv, 
57,  59,  60. 
HowjTi  (Owen  ?),  Richard,  40. 
Hudson,  William,  xi,  xii. 
Huese,  Nicholas,  notary,  22. 
Hull,  Alice  de  la,  5. 

Thomas,  5,  6,  7. 
Hungerford,  Walter,  Lord,  91,  106. 
Huntingdon,  County  of,  xc,  61,  64,  67. 

Prior  of,  l.x.\v. 

John  Holland,  Earl  of,  ci,  78,  80, 
102. 
Hurst  (Berks),  ciii,  civ,  83. 

Idle,  Richard,  Thomas,  William,   116, 

117. 
Ingepenne,  Inkepenne,  Roger,  6. 
Inkberrow  (Wore),  li. 
Inteberge  (Wore),  5,  6. 
Ireland,  85,  127. 
Irishman,  a  wild,  86. 
Isabella,  queen  consort  of  Edward  II,  28. 


150 


INDEX   OF  PERSONS  AND   PLACES 


Jackcsle,  Robert  of,  29,  31. 
Jackesley,  John,  clerk,  25. 
Jacob,  Pier,  Iv,  11. 
Jaxesle,  Yaxley  (Suffolk),  28,  n. 
John,  King,  Iv,  xciii,  9. 
Richard,  72. 

Kaermerdj-n,  Peter  de,  merchant,  39. 
Kampen  (Prussia),  Ixx,  cvi,  cvii,  76,  77, 

95. 
Keepers  of  the  Pri-\-}-  Seal : 

Thomas  Langley,  88,  89,  91. 

William  L^-ndewode,  105,  106. 

Robert  Stillington,  115. 

John  Russell,  117,  118. 
Kensyngton  (Surrey),  box. 
Kent,  Co.,  xl,  bod. 
Kent,  Thomas  Holland,  Earl  of,  76. 
Kent,  Hugh,  armourer,  11. 

Thomas,  clerk  of  the  council,  108, 
115. 
Kilby,  John,  li,  83. 
Kildesby,  WUham,  75. 
King's  Langley  (Herts),  75,  n. 
Kingston,  93. 
Kingston,  John,  S3. 
Kirkby,  John  of,  clerk,  10. 
Kirkley  Road  (Lowestoft),  60-70. 
Knights  Templars,  22. 
Knyght,  Roger,  112. 
Knj-^-et,  John,  kxxviii. 
Koc,  John,  41. 
Kyme,  John,  soothsayer,  xxxiv. 

La  Broage,  39. 
Lacer,  Nicholas,  46. 
Lambard,  William,  l.xxxvi. 
Lambourne,  John,  45. 
Lancaster  (duchy),  93. 

Henrj-,  Duke  of,  41. 
Langar  (Nottinghamshire),  47. 
Langcford  r.  Prior  of  Gisburn,  x.\.\ii. 
Langford,  John,  cii,  78. 

Nicholas,  Ixxiv,  Ixxv. 
Langport,  Richard,  clerk  of  the  council, 

108,  114,  118. 
Langton,  Walter  of,  lii. 
Large,  Robert,  merchant,  cxi,  103. 
La  Rochelle,  39. 

Lateran  Council,  The  Third,  bdi. 
Lausanne,  Provost  of,  24. 
Leadam,  L  S.,  vii,  xii,  xx. 


Lee,  John  de  la,  steward  of  the  house- 
hold, 54. 
Thomas  at,  83. 
LeGAT  I'.  WODEWARD,  xliv,  92. 
Legat,  Helming,  92-95. 
Leicester  Castle,  115. 
Leicestershire,  61,  64-67. 
Leighton  Busard,  Buzzard  (Beds),  27. 
Lenton  (Nottinghamshire),  47. 
Leon,  128. 

Lethenborough  (Bucks),  1. 
Leuer,  Le\Te,  Osborn  le,  lii,  8. 
Leveys,  Lewys,  Robert,  32,  33. 
Lewes,  Priory  of,  bdii. 
LejTe,William  le,  alderman  of  London,  8. 
Lincoln,  box,  bcx. 
Bishops  of: 

Henn-  Burghersh,  bdv. 
John  of  Boekingham,  72. 
Henrj-  Beaufort,  89. 
William  Grey,  101. 
Jolm  Ched worth,  114. 
John  RusseU,  117,  118. 
Lincoln,  Church  of,  Hx. 

Henry  Lacy,  Earl  of,  18. 
Lincolnshire,  bdx,  bcxiv,  xc. 

Sheriff  of,  32. 
Lithgrcins,  John,  escheator,  21. 
Little  Morton  (Cornwall),  107. 
Llandaff,  John  Marshall,  bishop  of,  117. 
Lombards  r.  Mercers,  lxx\-i,  42. 
Lombards,    Lombardy,    merchants   of, 

bcx^n,  lx.xix,  kxx,  kxxi,  42. 
London,  City  of,  U,  lxx\-i,  Lxx\'ii,  Ixxxi, 
Ix-xxix,  cxi,  cxv,  75,  85,  86,  88,  96, 
108. 
Aldermen  of,  liii,  Ivi,  xc^■ii,  S. 
Bishops  of: 
Eustace,  28,  n. 
Ralph  Baldock,  18. 
Robert  Braybroke,  80. 
Robert  Fitzhugh,  101. 
Thomas  Kemp,  114. 
Citizens  of,  li-hn,  Ixxvi,  l.x.xx,  xcix, 

8-11,  110. 
Common  Council  of,  Iv. 
Gild  of,  74. 
Mavor  of,  li,  liii,  l.xxx,  xc\'ii,  xcviii, 

74,  75. 
Port  of,  38,  111,  112. 
Sheriffs  of,  li,  liii,  Ixxviii,  IxxLx,  Ixxx, 

10,  32,  42,  43,  45,  86,  104. 
Warden  of,  li,  lii,  liii,  Ivi,  8,  9. 


INDEX    OF   PERSONS   AND    PLACES 


151 


London: 

Annourers,  Bladesmiths,  Cordwain- 
crs,  Embroidorers,  Grocers,  Fish- 
mongers, Founders,  Mercers, 
Painters,  Pinners,  Saddlers,  Spin- 
ners of,  xcvii. 

The  Founders'  Company,  92. 

The  Grovers'  Company,  xcvii, 
xcviii. 

Linen  Armourers  of,  74. 

The  Mercers'  Company,  Ixxvi,  42- 
47. 

The  Mystery  of  Taylors,  xcviii,  74. 

Clicapsido,  lxx-\i. 

Colemanstrct,  l.xxxi. 

Court  of  Hu.sting,  liii,  9. 

The  Fleet  Pri.son,  xlv,  9,  10,  12,  13, 
84. 

Warden  of  the  Fleet,  11,  15,  104. 

The  Gildhall,  liii,  9. 

Gisors'  Hall,  9. 

Gracechurch  parish,  11. 

Gracochurch  Street,  73,  103. 

Lombard  Street,  l.\x\'iii,  73. 

The  Old  Jewry,  Ixxxi. 

Church  of  Our  Lady  of  the  Strand, 
14. 

Paul's  Gate,  73. 

Priory  of  Holy  Trinitj',  Ixviii. 

Parish  of  St.  Benet's,  103. 

St.  Clement  Danes,  14. 

St.  Dunstan's,  104. 

St.  Marj-'s  Aldermary,  103. 

St.  Paul's,  Iv,  Ixrai. 

Staining  Lane,  11. 

The  Strand,  88. 

The  Tower,  liii,  Ixviii,  bcx\'iii,  15, 
32,  37,  38,  42,  46,  98,  99,  100. 

Constable,  Keeper,  of  the  Tower, 
l.xxix,  Ixxx. 

Clerks  of  The  Tower,  99. 

Tyburn,  xcviii. 

Walbrook,  48. 

The  Council  at,  xvi,  Ixi,  18,  26. 
Loughton,  William,  41. 
Louis  LX,  1. 
Lovekyn,  John,  Ixxx. 
Lovcll",  John,  Lord,  89. 
Lowestoft  v.  Yarmouth,  Ixxxix,  60. 
Lowestoft,  lx.\xix-xci,  60-70. 
Lowney,  Loveney,  William,  92,  93,  94. 
Lowther,  Adam,  notary,  25. 
Liibeck,  Ixx,  xcix,  c,  76,  77. 


Luce,  Master  Francis  de,  20. 
Ludsop,  William,  cxii,  cxiii. 
Ludyngton,  Lodington,  William,  justice, 

95. 
Lusignan,    Hugh    of.    Count    of    La 

Marche,  5. 
Lydvard,  Lydeyard,  John,  cix,  98,  99, 

100. 
Lye,  Henry  of,  cxii. 
Lyndelowe,  Thomas,  admiral,  37. 
Lyndewode,        Lindwood,        William, 

keeper  of  the  privy  seal,  105,  100. 
Lyndrajwr,  John,  40. 
Lyons,  First  Council  of,  Ivii. 

Madox,  Thomas,  xii,  lix. 
Maidenhead,  85. 
Maitland,  F.  W.,  xi,  xx,  xxii. 
Maldon,  Meldone,  Thomas,  Ixxix,  Ixxx, 
Ixxxi,  42,  46. 

William,  46. 
Malpas,  Henry,  master  in  chancery,  88. 
Malverne,  John,  Ixxxi. 
Mansel,  John,  Ux. 

MantonvUle,  Aubert  de,  notary,  22. 
Marche,  William  de  la,  bishop  of  Bath, 

treasurer,  li,  liii,  Iv,  8-18. 
Mare,  Peter  de  la,  89,  90. 

Thomas  de  la,  89,  90. 

William  de  la,  Ixiii. 
Marsden,  R.  G.,  xxviii. 
Marshal,  John,  5. 

William,  Earl  of  Pembroke,  5. 
Martin,  John,  of  Little  Thrillowe,  74. 
Martyn,  Martin,  John,  justice,  100. 
Matson,  Gerard,  a  Dutchman,  103,  104. 
Matthew  of  the  Exchequer,  15,  16,  18. 
Mauhan,  Gerard,  coiner,  Iv,  15,  18. 
Maulay,  Margaret  de,  59. 

Peter  de,  59. 
Mayn,  John,  46. 
Mcaux,  Abbey  of,  civ. 
Medley,  William,  116. 
Meleward,  John,  Ixxxi. 
Melton  (Leicestershire),  13. 
Mene,  John,  89,  90. 
Menigthori),  Hugh,  rector,  25. 
Messenger,  William,  5,  6,  7. 
Mcthelwoode,    Methwold    (die.    Nor- 
wich), 29. 
Meynell,  Menil,  Hugh,  Richard,  41. 

"sir  William,  41,42. 
Meynell  Langley  (Derbyshire),  41. 


152 


INDEX   OF   PERSONS   AND    PLACES 


Middlesex,  jd,  xlix,  kxi. 

Middleton,  Thomas,  attorney,  50. 

William,     sheriff    and    escheator, 
Ixxi,  35,  36,  37. 

Mirfeld,  William,  40. 

MolejTis,  Moh-ns,  Adam,  clerk  of  the 
council,  106,  107. 

Mollat,  G.,  Ivi. 

Mollesley,  Thomas,  108. 

MoLTNS  V.  FrENTCES,  bcxxiii,  48. 

Moh-ns,  Sir  John,  Gill,  WOliam  de, 
Lxxxiii,  48-53. 

Montacute,  John  Xe^ille,  Lord,  114. 

Montfort,  Amaurj-  de,  lix. 

John  of,  duke  of  Brittany,  37. 

Montgomen,-,  Alice,  118. 

Motley,  Robert,  bodx. 

Mortemart,  Cardinal,  bdii. 

Morton,  Richard,  107. 

Mouhaut,  Roger,  16. 

Moulton,  Thomas,  43,  44.  See  also 
Maldon. 

Mowbray,  John,  justice,  55,  56,  57. 

Munchensi,  Joan,  Warin  de,  5. 

Musgrave,  Thomas,  sheriff  of  York- 
shire, lxxxiii,  hcxxv,  \sxxvi,  bcxxvii, 
Ixxxix,  54-60. 

Myddelton,  Gilbert  de,  Ixviii. 

Navarre,  Blanche,  Queen  of,  13. 
Neirford,    Ne\Tford,    Matilda,    Maud, 
l.\-\i,  ba-iii,  bdx,  28,  29,  30. 

William  of,  29. 
Neland,  Nelond,  John,  96. 
Neville  v.  Neville,  xl\a,  cLx,  101. 
Ne\-ille,  John,  Lord,  102. 

Ralph,  see  Westmoreland. 

Ralph,  of  Roby,  54,  55,  56,  57,  59. 

Thomas,  treasurer,  92. 

Sir  Thomas,  102. 
Newcastle-on-TjTie,  118. 
Newland  (Essex),  71,  72,  74. 
Newland,  Agnes,  Margaret,  Richard,  71. 

Henry,  71-74. 
Newton,  Geoffrey,  46. 
Nicholas,  William,  brewer,  108. 
Nicolas,  Sir  N.  H.,  xi,  xii. 
Nicole,  John,  Stephen,  118,  119,  120. 
Norfolk,  l,\x,  61,  64,  71. 

John  Howard,  Duke  of,  118. 
Normandy,  xlvii. 

Northampton,  John  of,  mayor  of  Lon- 
don, xc\'iii. 


Northampton,  William  Bohun,  Earl  of, 

34. 
Northamptonshire,  61,  64,  67. 
North  Petherton,  Northpederton  (Som- 
erset), 14. 
Northumberland,  Lxxi. 

Henrj'  Percy,  first  Earl  of,  86,  89. 
Henry  Percy,  second  Earl  of,  101, 
102,  105.  " 
Norton  v.  Coltngborne,  xxxiv,  xxxvi, 

xxx^^i,  115. 
Norton,  Thomas,  115. 
Norway,  95. 
Norwich,  xcii. 
Bishops  of: 

John  Salmon,  bail,  lx\Tii,  29. 
Walter  Lehert,  114,  115. 
James  Goldwell,  117. 
Nottingham,  Hugh  of,  clerk,  10. 
Nuttle,    Peter,    sheriff    of    Yorkshire, 
Ixxxv. 

Oldington  (Shrops),  3. 
Oswaldslow  (Worcestershire),  li,  5. 
Otho,  Cardinal,  bni,  30. 
Ottobon,  Master,  of  Piacenza,  24. 
Oxford,  85,  86. 
O.xfordshire,  61,  64,  67,  117. 
Oxney,  John  of,  34. 

Palgrave,  Sir  F.,  xi,  xii,  xxxix. 

Pakner,  John,  attorney,  73,  74. 

Panham,  William,  rector,  35. 

Paris,  Matthew,  hii. 

Parkham  (Devon),  107. 

Parr,  William,  equerry,  117. 

Parson  of  Langar  i'.  Contngsbt, 

Ixxxii,  47. 
Parson,  WilUam,  16,  18. 
Passefeld,  Adam,  34. 
Paston,  William,  justice,  100. 
Paw,  Henrj-,  13. 

Roger,  of  Catesby,  liv,  13. 
Pek,  Pekke,  William,  of  le  Hoo,  cxii, 

cxiii,  105. 
Pembroke,  William  Marshal,  Earl  of,  5. 

William  of  \'alence,  Earl  of,  5. 
Penne,  John,  clerk,  44. 
Pensax,  Richard,  Robert,  Thomas,  81. 

Percival,  WilUam,  81,82. 
Percy,  Henrv,  Lord,  Ixxxix,  54,  56,  57, 

69. 
Ferrers,  Alice,  lxxxiii. 


INDEX    OF   PERSONS   AND    PLACES 


153 


Peso,  GoofTrpy,  5,  0,  7. 
Peverel,  family  of,  Ixvii. 
Phelip,  Hic'liard,  Ixxxi,  Ixxxii. 
Phillips,  E.,  Ixxviii. 
Piers,  John,  107. 
Pike,  L.  0.,  xxiv. 
Piper,  John,  103. 
Placv,  John,  83. 
Ples^y,  Pleshy  (E.ssex),  33. 
Plunimcr,  Simon,  Ixxx,  45. 
Plunki't,  Nichola.<!,  mercer,  42,  44. 
Plymouth,  men  of,  xcix,  c,  76,  86. 
PocHE  V.  Idle,  xxxvi,  xlvi,  116. 
Poche,  Pouche,  Alice,  116,  117. 

William,  116. 
Poleyn,  Robert,  98,  99,  100. 
PonjTigs,  Pojiiings,  Robert,  Lord  of,  96. 
Popes: 

St.  Gregory,  28,  .30. 

John  X\',  28. 

Gregory  IX,  Ivii. 

Innocent  IV,  Ivii. 

Celestine  V,  19. 

Boniface  VIII,  Iviii,  Ix,  Ixi,  13,  18, 
19,  20,  22,  23,  24. 

Clement  V,  Ixii. 

Sixtiis  IV,  122. 
Poyn.s  Poyntz,  Robert,  87,  88. 
Prioiir,  Thomas,  41. 
Projihet,    Master   John,    clerk    of    the 

council,  86. 
Proute,  John,  merchant  stapler,  110-113. 
Prussia,  Prussians,  xcix,  cvii,  e,  95.    See 

also  Teutonic  Knights. 
Punch,  William,  32. 
Putone,  David,  attorney,  4. 
Pyke,  Thomas,  40. 

Randeman,  William,  Ixxxviii. 
Ravenser,  John,  clerk,  76,  77. 
Rawe,  Richard,  of  Plymouth,  76. 
RaweljTi,  William,  brewer,  108. 
Reading,  John,  mercer,  42,  44. 
Rede,  \\'illiam,  83. 
Relleye,  John,  I.xxxi. 
Rex  v.  Gerdeston.  xxi,xxii,xlii,lxvi,27. 

I'.  MiDDLETON,  Ix.\i,  35. 

r.  RorcEUY  .\nd  Avenel,  xxviii, 
I.\.\ii,  37. 
Reynham,  Simon,  45. 
Richard    II,    x\'iii,    xxiii,    xxiv,    xxxiv, 
xxxviii,  xxxix,  xli,  Ixxxiii,  xciv,  xcv, 
xcvii,  71,  72. 


Richard  the  Brewer,  Iv,  17. 

Higgc,  Robert,  72. 

Rivaulx,  Peter  de,  Ixxi. 

Rivers,  Anthony  Woodville,  Earl,  117. 

Richard  Woodville,  Earl,  114. 
Robert  of  Yaxley,  l.xvi. 
Rochester,  John  Bottlesham,  Bishop  of, 

89. 
Rochester,  Solomon,  justice,  xlix,  1,  2,  4. 
Rode,  John,  of  Kampen,  95. 
Rogers,  Thorold,  1. 
Rollcston,  Robert,  keeper  of  the  great 

wardrobe,  105. 
Rome,  Ivii,  Iviii. 

Appeals  to,  cxvi. 

Church  of,  18,  26. 

Citation  from,  Ix. 

Court  of,  cx-v,  cxvi,  85. 
Rome,  John,  clerk  of  parliament,  88. 
Ros,  Ross,  Peter  of,  precentor  of  York, 

24. 
Ros,  Roos,  Lord,  of  Hamlake,  80. 
Roubury,  Gilbert,  justice,  8. 
Rouceby,  William,  Ix.xii,  l.xxiii,  37-40. 
Rouen,  22,  96,  119. 
Round,  J.  H.,  xcvii. 
Russell,  Sir  Morris,  91. 
Ruthyn,  Edmund  Grey,  Lord,  1 14. 
Rutland,  Earl  of,  .sec  Edward  IV. 
Ruyall,  Ruyhale,  Richard,  87,  88. 
Rye,  William,  of  Monmouth,  90. 
Rynell,  Robert,  81. 

Ryngestede,    Master   Richard,    official, 
Ixviii,  27. 

Sabina,  Peter,  Bishop  of,  Cardinal,  18, 

19,  26. 
St.  Botolph's,  32.    5ee  also  Boston. 
St.  Da\'id's,  Bishops  of: 
John  Gilbert,  SO. 
Guy  Mono,  89. 
Thomas  Rodburn,  104. 
St.  John,  Peter,  97,  99. 

Roger,  97. 
St.  John's,  Robert  Botyll,  Prior  of,  114, 

115. 
St.  Just,  Robert  de,  procurator  general 

of  the  Templars,  22. 
St.  Leonard's,  Shoreditch,  9. 
St.  Matthew,  Race  of,  37. 
St.  Severin's,  Peter  Taster,  dean  of,  115. 
Salisbury,   Jolin   Waltham,   bishop  of, 
xxxLx,  44,  80. 


154 


INDEX   OF   PERSONS   AND    PLACES 


Salisbun-,  Richard  Neville,  Earl  of,  ex, 

101,  102.  105,  106. 
Saman,  Salaman,  John,  forester,  84,  85. 
Sancto  Paulo,  John  de,  keeper  of  the 

chancery  roUs,  75. 
Sancto  Vito,  John  de,  treasurer  of  York, 

21,  23. 
Sandale,  John,  deputy  treasurer,  27. 
Sandwich,  lx.xx,  5. 

Ralph  of,  warden  of  London,  9. 
Sansauvcr,  Ralph,  liv,  16,  18. 
Savage,  William,  armourer,  Iv,  15,  18. 
Saward,  Stephen,  ciii,  84,  85. 
Say,  Geoffrey,  Ui. 

Saye,  John,  councillor,  115. 
Scale,  Peter,  merchant,  76. 
Scarborough  Fair,  68. 
Scarle,  John,  clerk,  89. 
Scillv  Islands,  Ixxiii,  37,  39,  41. 
Scotland,  118. 

Scrope,  Le  Scrope,  Sir  Richard,  59. 
SeintowaxTi,  St.  Owen,  Ralph,  escheator, 

97. 
Selissay,  Zierikzee,  96. 
SejTiches,  Peter  de,  merchant,  39. 
Shakel,  Richard,  LxxLx. 
Sharpenham,    Nicholas,    mercer,   IxxLx, 

Ixxx,  45. 
Sherman,  Robert,  81. 
Sherwood  Forest,  47,  81. 
Shipton-Olive  (Glouc),  90. 
Shirewode,  John,  121. 
Shobnall  (Staffordshire),  41. 
Silsoe  (Beds),  c.xii. 

Sinclair,  St.  Clare,  Philip,  Thomas,  97, 98. 
Skegby  (Nots),  81. 
Skegness,  32. 
Skipse,  church  of,  10. 
Skvllyng,   Skilling,   Michael,  attorney, 

50,"  51. 
Smith,  Thomas,  xi. 

Thoma.s,  brewer,  108. 
Smyth,  Thomas,  clerk,  98. 
Soisisons,  church  of,  24. 
Somerford,  William,  45,  46. 
Somerset,  l.\.\i. 

Joim  Beaufort,  Earl  of,  89. 
Somerton,  Thomas,  ciii,  84,  85. 
Southampton,  c,  cvii,  70. 
Southwark,  Ixxx. 

Spicer,  John  Ic,  mayor  of  the  staple, 
Bristol,  39,  40. 
Richard  Ic,  mayor  of  Bristol,  39. 


Sporyar,  John,  40. 

Springet,  Thomas,  32. 

Spynk,  Jolm,  S3. 

Stable,  Adam,  John,  45. 

Stafferton,  Staverton,  William,  83,  84. 

Stafford,  Humphrey,  Earl  of,  101. 

Margaret,  Countess  of  Westmore- 
land, cix,  102. 

Sir  Richard,  Ixxiv,  Ixxv. 
Stanton  St.  John's  (Oxf.),  97. 
Stapele,  Stapeley,  42,  43,  44. 
Star  Chamber,  see  Westminster. 
Starkol,  StarkoLf,  Thomas,  mercer,  42, 

44. 
Staunford,  Stamford  (Line),  Ixix. 
Stoke  Poges  (Bucks),  48. 
Stokes,  William,  xxx^•iii. 
Stoner,  Stonour,  WiUiam,  knight,  117. 
Stratton,  Adam  of,  clerk,  liv,  15,  17,  18. 

Thomas,  under-sheriff  of  Beds,  106. 
Stubbs,  William,  xi,  hi. 
Stury,  Starry,  Sir  Richard,  ci. 
Suffolk,  xxxviii,  Ixx,  xciv,  61,  64,  67,  70, 
71. 

Commonalty  of,  68. 
Suffolk,  Michael  de  la  Pole,  Earl  of,  xc, 
xci,  65. 

WilUam  de  la  Pole,  Earl  of,  102. 

John  de  la  Pole,  Duke  of,  110,  117. 
Surrey,  xl,  bdx,  Ixxi,  bcxx. 

Earl  of,  see  Warenne. 
Sussex,  box,  bod,  61. 

Tadcastre,  Tadcaster,  Pier  of,  Iv,  10,  11. 

Master  Robert,  10. 
Tate,  John,  110,  111,  112. 
Tateshalc,  Tatershall,  Eva,  35,  36,  37. 

Robert,  35. 
Tauy,  John  of,  1,  2. 
Tay,  Te\-,  Robert  of,  34. 
Taylor  v.  Rochester,  xlix,  2. 
Taylor,  Hugh  the,  xlix,  I,  2,  4. 
Taylors  v.  Brembre,  xcvii,  74. 
Templars,  22. 

Tenants  v.  W^aynflete,  exvi.  114. 
Tenants  of  Winkfield  v.  Abingdon, 

ciii,  82. 
Tenburj',  Pier  Jacob  of,  11. 
Termine  (Essex),  34. 
Teutonic  Knights,   cvi,   cvii,  78.     See 

also  Prussia. 
Theydon  (Essex),  3. 
Thoma.s,  Parson  of  Langar,  47,  48. 


INDEX    OF   PERSONS   AND    PLACES 


155 


Thrillowe,  Great,  Little  (Suffolk),  74. 
Thriske,  John,  Mayor  of  the  Staple,  111, 

112. 
Thurleigh  (Bucks),  Ixxxi. 
Thwaytes,  Thomius,   chancellor  of   the 

exchequer,  118. 
Tildesley,  Thomas,  Serjeant  at  law,  91. 
Tiiunierman,  Nichola.s,  c. 
Tiptoft,  John,  Lord,  47. 
Tinvyt,  Tirwhit,  Robert,  95. 
Torj-ton,  John,  40. 
Totenham,  WilUam,  mercer,  42. 
Tours,  Archbishop  of,  Ix. 
Treasurers : 

William  de  la  Marche,  see  Marche. 

Walter  Langton,  lii,  18. 

John  Sandale,  27. 

William  of  Edington,  33,  38. 

John  of  Waltham,  80. 

Sir  John  Norbury,  86. 

Guy  Mone,  89. 

Thomas  Ne\nlle,  92. 

John  le  Scrope,  100. 

Ralph  Cromwell,  103,  105,  106. 

James   Butler,    Earl   of  Wiltshire, 
cxiv. 
Tressilian,  Sir  Robert,  justice,  xci,  74. 
Turpin,  John,  attorney,  4. 
Turvey,  Adam,  brewer,  108. 
Tye,  John,  of  Polewain,  41. 

UgHTRED  I'.    MUSGRA.\"E,    KV,    XXX,   xlli, 

xlv,  Ixxxiii,  54. 
Ughtred,   Sir   Thomas,   lx.\xiii,   Lxxxiv, 

bcxxviii,  Lxxxix,  54-60. 
Ulskelf,  UUeskelf  (Yorksliire),  81. 
Uny,  Walter,  96. 

Valence  v.  Bishop  op  Worcester,  xxii, 

1,5. 
Valence,  Ayhner  of,  6. 

William  of.  Earl  of  Pembroke,  1,  li, 
5,  7,  8,  13. 
Vampage,  John,  attorney,  103. 
Vaughan,  Thomas,  keeper  of  the  great 

wardrobe,  117,  118. 
Vaurelli,  Peter,  Ixiii. 

Wadham,  John,  justice,  78,  79,  80. 
Walden,  John,  110,  111,  112. 
Wales,  box,  cxii. 
Waleys,  Gualeys,  Henry  le,  14. 


Walle,  Robert  atte,  40. 

Wallingford,  Prior  of,  17. 

Walman,  Robert,  56,  58. 

Waltham,  John  of,  keeper  of  the  rolls, 

xxxix,  44,  80. 
Walworth,  Sir  William,  Sheriff  of  I^on- 

don,  43,  n. 
Wamberge,  4. 
Wanborough  (Surrey),  71. 

(Wilts),  1,  2. 
Warenne,  John,  Earl,  Earl  of  Surrey, 
Earl  of  Sussex,  Ixvi,  Ixvii,  Ixviii, 
Lxix,  13,  28,  30. 
Joan,    Countess,    Ixvi,    Ixvii,    bdx, 

28-31. 
Thomas,  lxix. 
Warfeld,  John,  85. 
Warminster  (Wilts),  12. 
Warwick,  Guy  Beauchamp,  Earl  of,  18. 
Richard  Beauchamp,  Earl  of,  86. 
Thomas  Beauchamp,  first  Earl  of, 

admiral,  38. 
Thomas  Beauchamp,  second  Earl 

of,  cv,  86. 
Richard  Neville,  Earl  of,  1 14. 
Waterton,  Sir  Hugh,  cvi,  90,  91. 
Wathehurst,  Richard,  96. 
Wauton,    Wa\vton,    Sir   Thomas,    cxii, 
cxiii,  cxiv,  104,  105,  106. 
Walton,  Sir  William,  71,  72. 
WajTiflete,  see  Winchester. 
Weland,  Haynekyn,  Ixxxviii. 
Weld,  William,  46. 
Wendover  (Bucks),  Ixxxiii,  49-53. 
Wenlock,  John,  Lord,  114. 
Werkjesworth  v.  Pensax,  Ixxvi,  81. 
Werkesworth,  Robert  and  Margaret  his 

wife,  81,  82. 
Wesenham,  John,  46. 
Westminster,  xlix,  liii,  lxxxix,  cxiii,  2, 
17,  26,  37,  38,  40,  44,  75,  80,  86, 
88,  93,  97, 101, 102,  104,  106,  107, 
108. 
Abbey,  cxv,  28,  126. 
Chapel  of  St.  Stephen's,  Ixvi,  Ixvii, 

28,  29,  31. 
Church  of,  27,  28,  32. 
Palace  of,  28,  48,  97,  103,  114,  117, 

129. 
The  Star  Chamber  at,  48,  91,  97, 

103,  104,  115,  117,  118. 
The  Council  at,  xvi,  cviii,  2. 
Westmoreland,  Ixxi,  lxxxix. 


156 


IXDEX   OF   PERSONS   AND    PLACES 


Westmoreland,  Joan,  Countess  of,  cix, 
ex,  101,  102. 

Margaret,  Countess  of,  102. 

Ralph  Xe\'ille,  first  Earl  of,  cbc. 

Ralph  Ne\-ille,  second  Earl  of,  cix, 
ex,  89,  101,  102. 
West  Potteford,  Putford  (Devon),  107. 
Wej-mouth,  c,  76,  77. 
Whele  v.  Fortescce,  xlv,  117. 
^^^lele,   Richard,  alias    Pierson,   117, 

118. 
Whetehill,  Edmund,  116. 
Whistley  (Berks),  eiii,  S3. 
Whitby  Fair,  68. 
Whittington,  ]Manor  of,  11,  12. 
Whittington,  Nicholas,  12. 

Richard,   mavor  of    London,  87, 
88. 

Robert,  87. 

William,  87. 
Whitton,  Philip  of,  38. 
Whit>-ngham,    Robert,    mayor   of   the 

staple,  103. 
Wichingham,  John,  mercer,  42,  44,  45, 

46. 
Wight,  Isle  of,  76. 
WUle,  Cok,  76. 
Wilton,  Thomas,  Ixxxviii. 
Wiltshire,  xlix,  1. 
Winchester,  Bishops  of: 

William  of  Wykeham,  Ixxxiii,  ci, 
76,  77,  80. 

Henry  Beaufort,  102,  108,  118. 

William  Wa^•nfiete,  cx^n,  cxvii,  114, 
115. 
Winchester,  church  of,  115. 
Windsor,  Old  and  New,  kviii,  civ,  83. 

Castle,  82,  84,  90,  117. 

Forest,  84. 
Winkfield  (Berks),  ciii,  civ,  83,  84. 
Winwick,  W^•n\^■J•k,  John,  clerk,  Lxiii. 
Wissename,  Thomas,  S3. 
Witch  of  Eye,  xxxv. 
Wodeward,    Woodward,    William    and 

Agnes,  92-94. 
Wold,  The  (Yorkshire),  57. 
Woodford,  William,  42-46. 
Woodland  (Glouc),  86. 
Woodville,  Lionel,  116. 
Worcester,  Bishops  of: 

Godfrev  Giffard,  1,  5,  6,  7. 

John  Alcock,  117,  118. 


Worcester,  Thomas  Percy,  Earl  of,  89. 

John  Tiptoft,  Earl  of,  115. 
Worsted,  John,  mercer,  42. 

Simon,  alderman  of  London,  42, 
43,44. 
Wotton,  John,  79,  SO. 

Sir  John,  1,  2,  4. 
Wotton-Basset  (Wilts),  1. 
Writle,  Writtle  (Essex),  71. 
Wro.xham,   Wroksham,   .\dam,    bcxAoii, 

42,  43,  44,  46. 
Wychj-ngham,  William,  kxxLx. 
Wycliffe,  WicUf,  xxxiv,  xcNoi. 
Wyke,  William,  ci,  78. 
Wj-keham,  John,  yeoman,  108. 
Wj-mondham,   WiUiam  of,   warden   of 

the  mint,  15. 
Wj-ndesore,  Sir  William  of,  Ixxxiii. 
WiTHLM  V.  Men  of  Kampen,  xxix,  cvi, 

95. 
Wythum,  Witham,  Hugh  of,  cvii,  95. 

Yarmouth,  Ixxxix-.xcvii,  60-70. 
Yaxley  (Suffolk),  hm,  ba-ii,  28. 
Yeo,  Robert,  xxxix,  ci,  cii,  78,  SO,  SI. 
Yonge,  John,  smith,  116. 
York,  Archbishops  of : 

Walter  Grey,  2. 

John  le  Romein,  Ux,  21,  25,  26. 

Henry  of  Newerk,  Ix,  Ixi,  21. 

Thomas  Corbridge,  Ix,  24. 

Thomas  Arundel,  SO. 

John  Kemp,  102,  108,  109. 

Thomas  Rotherham,  117,  118. 
York,  Church  of,  lix,  bd,  bdii,  18-27. 

Canons  of,  24. 

Dean  and  Chapter  of,  Ix,  23,  24. 

Temporalities  of,  Ix. 

Treasurer     of,     see     Bedewynde, 
Sancto  Vito. 

St.  Man,''s  Chapel,  Ix. 

Pretend  of  Stillington,  be. 
York,  Exchequer  at,  9. 

Jail  at,  lxxx^•i,  55,  57. 
York,  Edmund  Langley,  Duke  of,  80. 

Lawrence  of,  clerk  of  the  Temple, 
22. 
Yorkshire,  bdx,  Ixxi,  Ixxxix. 

Sheriff  of,   32,   54,   82      See  also 
Musgrave,  Nuttle 

Zealand,  122. 


University  of  California 
SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY  l^j 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 
LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


Series  4280 


05IT.  OF  CALIF.  LIBHASY.  LOS  ASGELES 


L  OOfj  -KJiJ  H')H    1 


(,  "^1  I 


D     000  466  218     5 


37 

G79 

191 


.-'..% 


